UC-NRLF 


$B    M*e-  b7D 


Liiu 


n 


^^i^m 


laLioaii 


BY 


'Berkeley 
LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CALIFORNIA 


^ 


THE    PAPAL    CLAIMS. 


THE 


PAPAL    CLAIMS 


CONSIDERED    IN    THE    LIGHT 


SCRIPTURE   AND    HISTORY. 


WITH    AN    INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER   BY 


THE  RT.  REV.  GEORGE  F.  SEYMOUR,  S.T.D.,  LL.D., 

P.ISHOF    OP^   SPRINGFIELD,    U.S.A. 


NEW  YORK: 
JAMES    POTT,  12  i^STOR    PLACE. 


LOAN  STACK 


PREFACE. 


The  question  of  the  Papal  Claims  is  essentially  a  Biblical 
and  an  historical  question ;  and  there  is  some  danger  at 
present  of  this  simple  and  obvious  truth  being  forgotten, 
and  the  controversy  being  diverted  into  all  kinds  of 
byways.  It  has  not  been  thought  safe  to  ignore  some  of 
the  arguments  now  commonly  brought  forward  by  Roman 
controversialists,  however  little  importance  they  may 
appear  to  possess;  but  it  has  been  the  object  of  the 
writer  to  keep  the  main  question  in  view  throughout 
and  to  treat  it  as  such. 

That  question,  as  both  sides  admit,  is  the  Supremacy 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  over  the  Christian  Church.  Did 
our  Lord  give  to  St.  Peter,  and  through  him  to  the 
Bishops  of  Rome,  supreme  power  to  teach  and  to  rule 
the  Catholic  Church  ?  We  have  endeavoured  to  examine 
the  evidence  adduced  in  support  of  this  theory  with 
all  possible  care  and  candour  :  nothing  has  been  wilfully 
passed  by,  and  nothing  has  been  consciously  misre- 
presented.    The  reader,  however,  must  judge  as  to  the 

597 


X  PREFACE, 

fairness  and  cogency  of  the  arguments  and  the  legitimacy 
of  the  conclusions. 

Whatever  may  be  the  value  of  the  work,  it  is  at  least 
an  independent  testimony.  The  authors  consulted,  with 
few  exceptions,  have  been  Roman  Catholic  contro- 
versialists; and  no  point  of  the  least  importance  urged 
by  them  in  support  of  their  position  has  been  disre- 
garded. -  The  principal  foreign  authorities  made  use  of, 
in  opposition  to  the  claims  of  Rome,  have  been — Fried- 
rich,  Z>^^^;;/^;2/<^/  Langen,  Z>^j  Vaticanische  Dogma  ;  and 
Friedrich,  Zur  dltesien  Geschichte  des  Primats :  the  prin- 
cipal Roman  works — Passaglia,  De  prcBrogativis  Beaii 
Petri;  Foggini,  De  Ro7nano  St.  Petri  Itinere ;  Allies,  St. 
Peter ^  his  na?ne  and  his  office  ;  Do.,  See  of  St.  Peter  ;  Do.,^ 
Dr.  Pusey  and  the  Ancient  Church ;  Hergenroether,  De 
Catholicce  Ecclesice  pri^nordiis ;  Kellner,  Verfassiing, 
Lehramt^  &^c;  Schneemann,  Sancti  Irencei  De  ecclesia 
Roma7ia^  &*c.;  Hefele,  Beitrdge ;  Do.,  History  of  the 
Councils  (German  and  English) ;  Friedrich,  Kirchen- 
geschichte  Deutschlands ;  Hist,  polit.  Blatter filr  das  Kathol- 
Deutschland^  vol.  Ixxiv. ;  Gallwey,  Lectures  on  Ritualism  ; 
Commentaries.  Of  the  early  writers  quoted  may  be 
mentioned — The  Apostolic  Fathers  (Editions  of  Geb- 
hardt,  Harnack,  and  Zahn  ;  Hefele  and  Funk  ;  and  Light- 
foot)  ;  Irenaeus  (Editions  of  Migne,  Harvey,  and  Stieren) ; 
Tertullian  (Editions  of  Migne  and  Oehler) ;  Cyprian 
(Editions  of  Benedictines,  Fell,  and  Hartel,  and  tran- 
slation of  Newman);  Origen,  Eusebius,  &c. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   QUESTION   STATED. 

PAGE 

The  influence  and  claims  of  the  Roman  Church — Importance  of  the 
question — A  serious  matter  to  pass  from  the  Enghsh  Church 
to  the  Roman,  or  vice  versa — A  truth  forgotten — Above  all, 
necessary  to  understand  the  real  grounds  on  which  such  a 
change  should  be  made — Some  assigned  reasons  for  changing 
utterly  insufficient — Restlessness  and  unhappiness — Personal 
inclination  —  Abuses  in  the  Church  —  Only  one  reason  for 
changing  sufficient :  that  the  claims  of  the  Papal  See  are  valid  ; 
that  they  are  supported  by  Scripture  and  the  primitive  Church 
— Is  the  Papal  supremacy,  as  at  present  claimed,  of  divine 
right  or  not  ?  This  the  whole  question — Papal  statement  of 
this  question— Such  claims  must  be  fully  substantiated — The 
object  of  this  book  to  examine  the  grounds  on  which  they 
rest I 


CHAPTER  II. 

ARGUMENT   FROM   THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH. 

Roman  Appeal :  Those  who  beheve  in  one  Catholic  Church  can 
find  that  Church  only  in  the  Roman  Communion— Grant  that 
Christ  intended  the  Church  to  be  one,  and  schism  is  a  sin — Who 
is  to  blame  for  the  schism  ? — How  can  it  be  lawfully  healed  ? — 
The  real  facts  of  the  case  frequently  ignored — What  is  the  true 
basis  of  union  ? — The  question  of  the  Papal  claims  must  be 
settled — If  they  are   invalid,   the   Papacy   the  real  cause  of 


xii  CONTENTS, 

PAGE 

disunion  —  Duty  of  individuals  —  Illustration  from  the  Old 
Testament— On  what  grounds  are  the  Papal  claims  supported? 
^Three  principal  reasons — The  only  valid  proof      .        .        .16 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    'A   priori'   ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS. 

The  Roman  boast  of  uncbangeableness — Virtually  abandoned — The 
argument  from  history  disparaged — The  argument  "from 
common  sense,"  or  d  priori — Partly  true,  partly  false — To  be 
used  with  caution  and  impartiahty — The  argument  stated — 
The  need  of  certainty — The  Roman  Church  alone  professes  to 
give  it — Criticism  of  the  argument— (1)  The  craving  for  cer- 
tainty not  really  satisfied — (2)  Not  universally  professed — 
(3)  Is  it  better  that  all  our  questions  should  be  conclusively 
settled?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  many  important  questions  re- 
mained long  unsettled — (4)  The  Papal  profession  to  answer 
such  questions  no  proof  of  ability  to  do  so — The  real  question 
again  :  What  proof  can  we  obtain  of  the  Papal  pretensions  ?    .     26 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION. 

The  existence  cf  the  Roman  primacy — Its  claims  widely  acknow- 
ledged— How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for? — Compared  with  the 
argument  for  the  Episcopate — This  great  difference  :  the  claims 
of  tlie  Episcopate  always  substantially  the  same,  while  the 
Papal  claims  are  enlarged  from  age  to  age— The  appeal  on  this 
point  must  be  made  to  history  —  Certain  facts  admitted — 
Diverse  interpretations  of  the  facts— History  must  setde  the 
question 39 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   POSITION  OF  ST.    PETER   IN  THE  GOSPELS. 

Scripture  testimony — Principles  of  interpretation — The  quotation  of 
isolated  texts  misleading — Illustration — The  principal  text : 
St.    Matt.    xvi.    18— Different  interpretations — The    Roman 


CONTENTS.  xiif 

PACK 

interpretation  does  not  support  the  Papal  claims — Position  of 
St.  Peter — Power  of  the  keys— Binding  and  loosing — Not  given 
to  Peter  alone  or  supremely — Consequences  of  such  a  theory — 
Second  text  :  St.  Luke  xxii.  31,  32 — Third  text :  St.  John  xxi. 
15-17 — Peter  has  no  primacy  of  jurisdiction  assigned  to  him 
in  the  Gospels 49 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ST.    PETER   IN  THE  CHURCH,    AND   IN   RELATION  TO  THE   OTHER 
APOSTLES. 

The  interpretation  of  the  Gospel  texts  must  be  sought  in  the  Acts 
and  apostolical  epistles — Was  the  primacy  of  Peter  one  of 
honour  only,  or  of  power  also  ? — Peter  not  the  master  of  the 
Church — In  the  Acts — In  the  Epistles — St.  Peter  had  no 
authority  over  the  other  apostles — All  his  powers  and  privileges 
shared  by  the  rest — Illustrated  by  recorded  facts — By  the  rela- 
tion between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul — A  relation  of  perfect 
equality— St.  Paul's  epistles — His  independence  of  Peter  and 
the  other  apostles 67 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ST.   PETER,   ST.   JAMES,    AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 

St.  James  and  Jerusalem — Romans  ignore  the  importance  of  this 
argument— The  Council— Significance  of  the  very  holding  of  a 
Council — The  question  not  referred  to  Peter,  but  to  the  apostles 
and  elders — St.  Peter  the  foremost  speaker,  not  the  president 
— Position  of  St.  James  at  Jerusalem  and  in  the  Church — The 
Church  of  Jerusalem — Testimony  of  Eusebius— Hegesippus — 
Clement — Inferences  from  these  testimonies — Manner  in  which 
St,  Peter  is  referred  to — Growth  of  the  Petrine  legend      .        .    84 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

Is  the  Roman  interpretation  verified  by  ecclesiastical  testimony? — 
The  Vincentian  Canon — The  Apostolic  Fathers — The  signifi- 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

cance  of  their  writings — St.  Clement  of  Rome— His  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians — Its  bearing  on  the  Papal  question — Dr.  Light- 
foot's  remarks — Quotations — Germ  of  Roman,  not  of  Papal, 
pretensions — Barnabas — Hermas — St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch — 
Dr.  Lightfoot's  remarks — St.  Ignatius  writes  to  the  Romans, 
but  makes  no  reference  to  any  Petrine  or  Papal  supremacy — 
His  other  writings — No  trace  of  Roman  claims — General  effect 
of  the  testimony  of  this  p)eriod loo 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ST.    IRENiEUS   AND  HIS   AGE. 

The  Apologists — Irenaeus,  his  age — The  importance  of  his  testimony 
— The  principal  passage,  Bk.  iii.  c.  3 — The  Greek  lost — Quoted 
in  Latin — The  occasion  of  his  statement — The  meaning  of  the 
passage— Various  interpretations — Assigned  great  importance 
to  the  Roman  Church— Not  to  the  Roman  Bishop — Nor  to  the 
Roman  Church  as  deriving  a  primacy  from  St.  Peter — Parti- 
cular expressions  considered — Irenaeus  says  nothing  of  Papal 
authority  or  supremacy — Accounted  for  only  by  the  fact  that 
Irenaeus  knew  nothing  of  such  authority — The  Paschal  con- 
troversy— Bishop  Victor  of  Rome — His  arbitrary  conduct — Its 
effect — Interposition  of  Irenaeus— His  ignorance  of  any  Papal 
supremacy — Clement  of  Alexandria — Tertullian — His  argument 
against  heretics  similar  to  that  of  Irenaeus — He  knows  nothing 
of  a  Roman  or  Papal  primacy— Origen  misrepresented — His 
testimony — General  result  of  the  testimonies  of  this  period       .  113 


CHAPTER  X. 

ST.    CYPRIAN   AND   THE  ROMAN   SEE. 

The  germ  of  the  Roman  theory  not  in  the  Bible — Something  only 
partially  resembling  this  theory — Need  of  caution — Influence  of 
Rome  useful — Unsuspected,  and  hence  unresisted — Writings  of 
St.  Cyprian — Apparent  concession  to  modern  Roman  claims — 
Dr.  Newman's  statement  of  the  question — The  principal  passage 
— Interpolated — Its  true  meaning — It  teaches  no  more  than 
earlier  testimonies— St.  Peter  the  centre  of  unity,  not  the  ruler 
of  the  Church — All  the  Apostles  equal  in  power — St.  Cyprian 


CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGE 

Speaks  of  the  Roman  Church  as  the  See  of  Peter,  but  assigns 
no  superiority  of  authority  to  the  Roman  Bishop — Illustrated 
by  the  controversy  on  the  baptism  of  heretics — African  Councils 
act  independently,  and  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  Bishop — 
Their  testimonies — Firmilian  of  Csesarea — Conclusion      .         .  131 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICiEA. 

Importance  of  the  Nicene  Council — Bearing  on  the  Papal  claims — 
The  position,  circumstances,  authority  of  the  council — Ques- 
tions demanding  solution — (i)  By  whom  was  the  council  con- 
voked?— By  the  Emperor,  as  all  agree — Was  Pope  Silvester 
specially  consulted? — Bishop  Hefele's  argument — Insufficient — 
Dr.  Friedrich's  remarks—  (2)  Who  presided  over  the  council  ? 
Generally  Bishop  Hosius  of  Corduba — Was  he  Papal  Legate  ? 
— No  evidence  of  this— Shown  by  a  statement  of  the  facts — (3) 
Were  the  decrees  of  the  Council  confirmed  by  the  Pope? — 
Hefele's  arguments  in  support  of  this  theory — No  evidence  of 
such  confirmation — Testimony  of  the  Synod  itself :  Canons  6 
and  7 — The  precedence  of  the  Sees  referred  to  custom — Ex- 
planations— Interpolations — The  synod  knew  nothing  of  the 
Papal  Supremacy — Conclusion  , 147 


CHAPTER  XIL 

POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY. 

The  early  Church  ignorant  of  modern  Papal  claims— How  do  we 
account,  then,  for  the  rise  of  the  Papal  power  ?— Further  facts 
considered — The  Papal  claims  never  universally  accepted- 
Traces  of  gradual  Papal  aggressions— The  Council  of  Sardica 
— Third  Canon — Appeals  to  the  Roman  Bishop— Fifth  Canon 
— Inconsistent  witli  Papal  claims — Council  of  Constantinople^- 
Second  Canon— Third  Canon — The  greatness  of  the  cities,  not 
the  apostolic  origin  of  the  sees,  determined  their  precedence — 
Growth  of  Roman  Papal  power  explained— Illustrated  from 
secular  history — Papal  power  and  influence — The  real  question  165 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH. 

PAGE 

Objection :  no  security  for  the  Catholic  faith  in  the  English  Church 
— Rests  upon  the  assumption  that  Roman  teaching  is  true — 
This,  the  very  point  to  be  proved — The  objection  used  as  a 
subsidiary  argument  in  behalf  of  Roman  claims — The  Catholic 
Faith — What  it  means — (i)  All  religious  truth  (even  if  truth)  not 
of  equal  importance — Opinion  and  faith  illustrated— (2)  The 
multiphcatioii  of  dogmas — Not  desirable — Not  scriptural  or 
primitive — Necessity  of  doctrinal  definitions  conceded — Creed 
of  Nicaea — Contrasted  with  recent  Roman  definitions— English 
formularies  and  ecclesiastical  courts — What  do  the  formularies 
teach? — Compared  with  primitive  doctrine — The  demands  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  make  it  impossible  to  give  him  his  old 
position  in  the  Church — Decisions  of  ecclesiastical  courts — 
The  Gorham  case — The  Bennett  case — Essays  and  reviews — 
Conclusion 179 


INTRODUCTORY   CHAPTER. 


What  is  Catholicism  ?  What  is  Romanism  ?  Is 
there  any  difference  between  them  ?  It  would  be 
interesting  and  profitable  and  withal  very  sad  to  hear 
the  answers  which  would  be  given  by  nine  men  out 
of  every  ten  to  these  questions.  The  ignorance  on 
the  subject  which  these  inquiries  probe  and  lay  bare 
is  almost  universal,  and  as  profound  as  it  is  wide- 
spread. The  learned  share  it  with  the  illiterate,  the 
scholar  and  the  refined  gentleman  with  the  rustic 
and  the  boor.  The  great  mass  of  Romanists,  equally 
with  Protestants,  are  here  at  one  ;  they  know  little 
or  nothing  about  the  subject.  They  both  identify 
Catholicism  and  Romanism,  and  for  the  same  reason, 
ignorance,  though  with  an  opposite  result.  The  one 
is  a  Romanist  because  he  holds  that  Romanism  and 
Catholicism  are  identical,  and  he  must  be  a  Catholic  j 
and  the  other  is  a  Protestant  because  he  is  persuaded 
that  Catholicism  and  Romanism  are  the  same,  and 
whatever  else  he  may  be  he  cannot  be  a  Romanist, 
This  ignorance  seems  to  be  proof  against  ordinary 
methods  of  enlightenment.  Its  victims  love  the 
shadow  of  ignorance,  partly  because  it  is  hereditary 
and  covers  a  multitude  of  sins  of  their  forefathers 


■ 


xviii  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER, 

and  their  own,  partly  because  it  is  an  excuse  for 
their  position  ;  it  reconciles  them  to  their  religious 
habits,  and  accounts  for  their  temper,  and  disposition, 
and  acts,  and  words  ;  and  partly  because  it  is  their 
interest  to  remain  ignorant,  since  the  capital  with 
which  they  trade  and  the  weapons  with  which  they 
fight  would  be  swept  away  were  the  distinction  be- 
tween Romanism  and  true  Catholicism  generally  un- 
derstood, and  clearly  apprehended  by  the  public. 
The  object  of  this  excellent  little  monograph  by  an 
anonymous  English  author  to  which  we  have  been 
asked  by  the  enterprising  American  publisher  to 
write  an  introduction,  has  this  laudable  object  in 
view,  to  enlighten  the  public  as  to  the  essence  of 
Romanism  and  the  true  nature  of  Catholicism,  and 
the  consequent  real  distinction  between  them. 

When  this  object  has  been  secured  an  immense 
amount  of  utterly  useless  controversy  will  be  forever 
at  an  end,  the  mischievous  occupation  of  a  large 
number  of  polemics  will  be  forever  gone,  the  drift  to 
Rome  on  the  part  of  earnest  but  ill-informed  persons, 
which  has  of  late  years  been  checked,  will  virtually 
cease,  and  on  the  other  hand  candid  and  intelligent 
Romanists,  when  their  eyes  are  opened,  will  seek  the 
communion  of  the  one  holy  catholic  and  apostolic 
Church  in  this  land  by  renouncing  allegiance  to  the 
usurped  and  uncatholic  and  uncanonical  claim  to 
spiritual  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome.  We  commend  this  little  book  to  the  careful 
and  thoughtful  perusal  of  all  into  whose  hands  it 
may  come.     It  is  indeed  itself  but  an  introduction, 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xix 

but  it  opens  the  subject  wisely  and  well — wisely^ 
because  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  written  is  admirable  ; 
there  is  no  bitterness,  there  is  no  abuse  ;  well^  because 
the  case  is  plainly  and  succinctly  stated,  and  the  in- 
terested inquirer,  who  would  prosecute  his  researches 
further,  is  modestly  yet  sufficiently  helped  to  do  so. 
To  recur  to  our  questions  with  which  we  started, 
What  is  Catholicism  ?  what  is  Romanism  ?  Is  there 
any  difference  between  them  ?  Catholicism  is  the 
word  which  expresses  the  universality  of  the  Church 
of  God,  the  Body  of  Christ,  as  united  under  one 
head,  her  sovereign  incarnate  Lord,  seated  on  the 
eternal  throne  in  heaven  which  continues  now  as 
from  the  first  "  steadfastly  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles  and  the  fellowship,  and  the  breaking  of  the 
bread,  and  the  prayers."  '^  The  centre  of  unity  in 
the  Catholic  Church  is  Christ  in  heaven,  the  sun  of 
righteousness.  He  diffuses  His  life-giving  power 
organically  through  His  deputies,  appointed  by  Him- 
self, the  apostles,  and  their  successors  in  all  lands. 
When  Christ,  risen  from  the  dead  in  His  glorified 
humanity,  stood  on  the  Mount  of  the  Ascension  just 
before  He  went  up  into  heaven,  with  His  eleven 
apostles  around  Him,  there  was  presented  an  initial 
object  lesson  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  its  Head  and 
ministers,  in  its  character,  and  scope,  and  duration. 

*  The  original  has  the  article  prefixed  to  each  of  the  nouns, 
doctrine,  fellowship,  breaking  of  bread,  and  prayers. 

"  'Hdav  da  Ttpodxaprepovvrei  rj;  didaxfj  rojr  airodro- 
Xgov,  Hal  ry  KoircDvla,  ual  r^  nKdidEi  rov  apvov,  uai 
ral^  Ttpodevxocl^.'"' — Acts  ii.  42. 


■ 


XX  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

The  centre,  the  Head  is  Christ,  the  apostles  stand 
equally  related  to  Him.  They  are  the  radii.  He 
speaks  to  them  all  alike^  and  His  commission  through 
them  sweeps  around  the  entire  circle,  "  Go  ye  into  all 
the  Avorld  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.'* 
It  is  a  commission  universal  as  to  territory,  "  all  the 
world  ;  *'  universal  as  to  subjects,  "  every  creature." 
In  their  relation  to  Him,  as  subordinates  to  a  supe- 
rior, they  are  on  a  perfect  equality,  "  Go  ye,'  He 
says  to  the  eleven^  not  ^^ go  thou,''  to  one,  St.  Peter. 
Their  message  is  the  same,  to  proclaim  and  teach 
"  Whatsoever  He  has  commanded  them,"  and  they 
are  all  equally  empowered  to  teach,  not  one  inde- 
pendently of  the  rest,  and  they  dependent  upon 
him,  but  all  mutually  dependent  upon  each  other 
in  order  to  secure  compliance  with  the  condition 
imposed  by  Christ  as  a  limit  and  boundary  of 
their  teaching,  "whatsoever  He  had  commanded," 
nothing  7?iore,  fiothing  less.  The  duration  of  this 
state  of  things  in  all  its  essential  details  is  to  be 
for  all  time."  "  Lo  !  I  am  with  you  alway,"  says 
our  Lord,  "even  to  the  end  of  the  world."*  Here 
we  have  the  picture  of  the  Catholic  Church.  It  is 
prepared  and  arranged  by  our  Blessed  Lord  Himself. 
It  is  photographed  for  us,  for  our  study,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  grouping  is  Christ's,  the  adjust- 
ment of  all  the  particulars  is  His.  It  is  the  solemn 
moment  of  His  departure  from  earth  no  more  to 
appear  again  until  He  comes  when  human  history  is 

*  St.  Matthew,  xxviii.  19,  20.     St.  Mark,  xvi.  15. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxi 

ended,  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  the 
last  great  day.  It  is  the  initial  object  lesson  given 
by  Christ  of  His  Church,  the  Catholic  Church.  Look 
at  it.  It  shows  us  Christ  in  His  relation  to  His 
chief  ministers  and  their  successors,  equally  near  to 
all ;  not  one,  St.  Peter  reclining  on  His  bosom  and 
the  others  at  a  distance,  learning  through  his  lips 
their  Master's  will.  That  place  had  been  St.  John's 
at  the  last  supper,  never  St.  Peter's,  now  all  are  at  an 
equal  remove,  and  all  hear  alike  and  on  equal  terms 
their  Lord's  commands,  "  Go  ye,"  ''  teach  ye,"  "bap- 
tize ye."  They  are  to  go,  to  teach,  to  baptize  in 
immediate  dependence  upon  Him,  not  in  subordi- 
nate dependence  upon  one  preferred  before  his  fel- 
lows, and  then  through  him  and  only  through  him 
responsible  to  Christ.  Look  at  the  picture  narrowly, 
carefully,  critically,  you  will  find  it  in  the  Holy 
Gospel,  it  refuses  absolutely  to  suggest,  much  less 
present,  such  an  idea.  The  next  picture  of  the 
Christian  Church,  the  Body  of  Christ,  is  sketched  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  of  its  condition  immediately  after 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  in  its  teaching  as  regards 
all  points  indeed,  but  especially  the  one  which  now 
claims  our  attention  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
first.  The  Blessed  Spirit  paints  the  portrait  of  the 
first  Christians,  the  very  firsts  there  were  none  before 
them,  by  these  graphic  words  :  "  They  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  Apostle's  doctrine  and  fellowship, 
and  in  breaking  of  bread  and  in  prayers."  How  pre- 
cisely and  accurately  does  this  state  of  things  as  a 
reality  presenting  existing    facts,    correspond    with 


xxii  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

what  our  Lord  contemplates  when  He  says  to  the 
eleven,  "  Go  ye,"  "  teach  ye,"  ^'  baptize  ye  "  !  They 
with  St.  Matthias  added  to  their  number,  have 
fulfilled  His  behests,  and  lo  !  the  results,  the  sub- 
jects of  their  teaching  and  ministrations,  the  laity, 
"  continue  steadfastly  in  their  (the  Apostles')  doc- 
trine and  fellowship,  and  the  breaking  of  bread 
and  in  the  prayers."  As  on  the  Mount  of  Ascen- 
sion, in  prospect  of  work,  the  Apostles  stand  in  offi- 
cial relation  equally  near  to  their  divine  Master, 
so  now  when  they  have  begun  their  labors,  and  are 
ministering  to  devout  men  *'  out  of  every  nation 
under  heaven,"  their  converts  look  to  them  severally 
as  on  a  level  of  perfect  equality,  they  continue  stead- 
fastly in  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  etc.,  not  one's  St, 
Peter  s^  but  in  that  of  alL  This  is  catholicity  ;  it  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  Romanism.  It  is  equally,  be 
it  observed,  with  our  Lord's  object  lesson  just  before 
He  ascended,  inconsistent  with  sectarianism.  Roman- 
ism and  sectarianism  are  alike  utterly  and  absolutely 
irreconcilable  with  the  chart  and  charter  of  His 
Church  as  given  by  Christ  on  the  Mount  of  Ascen- 
sion, and  with  the  organism  and  condition  of  the 
Church  as  it  existed  at  the  first,  in  pentecostal  times, 
when  the  original  eleven,  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  planted,  and  watered,  and  builded,  and  God 
gave  the  increase.  Catholicism,  then,  expresses  the 
condition  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  as  organized  by 
Him,  so  that  all,  through  His  deputies,  the  Apostles, 
and  their  successors,  teaching,  laboring,  ministering 
in    His  name  in  all  lands,  should  stand  equally  re- 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxiii 

lated  to  Him,  should  be  equally  near  to  Him,  should 
equally  share  in  His  blessings  the  fullness  of  Him 
that  filleth  all  in  all.  The  Catholic  Church  in  its 
government  and  jurisdiction,  as  organized  by  Christ, 
is  an  oligarchy  on  earth  composed  originally  of  the 
eleven  Apostles  under  their  divine  Master  as  their 
head,  and  then  and  afterward  to  the  end  of  the 
world  of  their  official  successors,  the  bishops  under 
Christ,  as  their  head.  The  ministry  of  the  Church 
in  its  highest  order.  Bishops,  is  first  in  order  of 
time,  and  through  their  official  acts  they  beget  the 
laity,  and  nourish  them  and  build  them  up  by  the 
word  and  sacraments.  The  essential  principles  of 
the  government  of  the  Church  are  confessedly  re- 
vealed in  Holy  Scripture,  and  these  in  the  nature  of 
things  cannot  change  ;  when  once,  therefore,  we 
clearly  ascertain  these  principles,  we  have  settled 
the  question  forever  what  the  polity  of  the  Church 
must  be.  This  we  can  assuredly  do  by  the  repeated 
illustrations  given  us  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  and 
Revelation  of  the  condition  of  the  Church  through- 
out the  civilized  world  for  the  first  one  hundred 
years  of  its  existence,  and  hence  we  have  abundant 
opportunity  and  ample  material  to  enable  us  to  form 
a  sure  and  solid  judgment  as  to  what  these  princi- 
ples are,  and  what  they  are  not.  For  our  present 
purpose  it  is  sufficient  to  state  that  we  clearly  see  the 
Apostles  after  their  long  sojourn  together  in  Jeru- 
salem, in  obedience  to  their  Lord's  behest,  going 
forth  into  all  the  world  and  planting  and  organizing 
churches    independent    of   any  earthly  centre,   and 


■ 


XXIV  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER, 

dependent   through  them  on  Christ  alone  as  their 
sovereign  ruler  and  head. 

We  see  nothing  in  Holy  Scripture  of  an  absolute 
monarchy  dominating  the  Church  and  substituting  a 
human  head  on  earth  unlimited  from  beneath  in  the 
place  of  Christ  the  divine  Head  in  heaven.  We  see 
the  Apostles  laboring  in  different  countries,  working 
on  their  own  lines,  with  results  varying  as  to  the 
people  whom  they  taught,  and  their  own  individual- 
ity as  to  genius,  and  temper,  and  character,  but  the 
same  as  to  doctrine,  and  practice,  and  sacraments, 
and  worship.  These  churches,  thus  apostolically 
founded,  we  find  in  the  earliest  glimpses  which  eccle- 
siastical history  affords  us  of  their  condition  to  be 
mutually  related  to  each  other  as  members  of  a  com- 
mon family  looking  up  to  their  Head,  Christ  in 
heaven.  The  differences  as  to  power  and  influence 
among  these  branches  of  the  Church  were  due,  then, 
as  in  all  time,  to  what  are  called  the  accidents  of 
earthly  estate  and  circumstances,  so  that  the  bishop 
of  a  large  wealthy  diocese  was  accounted  among 
men  as  more  important  than  his  brother  who  pre- 
sided over  an  obscure  and  insignificant  see,  but  in 
their  official  character  they  were  absolutely  equal. 
For  purposes  of  government  and  administration 
there  must  needs  be  conventional  arrangement  by 
which  there  shall  be  officers  of  human  appointment 
to  preside  in  the  assemblies  of  the  faithful,  and  exe- 
cute their  behests  as  embodied  in  canons,  and  take 
order  for  the  carrying  on  the  various  functions  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth.  These  offices,  called 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxv 

by  whatever  name,  are  not  orders  in  the  divinely 
appointed  ministry  of  the  Church,  but  simply  titles 
and  distinctions  to  denote  those  whose  duty  it  is  to 
discharge  these  functions  more  or  less  necessary  to 
the  well  being  of  the  Church.  Hence  patriarchs, 
metropolitans,  archbishops,  primates,  and  other  like 
names  are  words  of  purely  ecclesiastical  origin,  and 
describe,  with  more  or  less  accuracy,  the  position 
and  duties  to  which  the  Church  has  called  certain 
bishops.  When  thus  elevated  by  their  fellows  to 
posts  of  relative  superiority,  they  are  in  their  official 
character  simply  bishops  still.  More  they  cannot 
be,  because  God  has  appointed  no  higher  order  in 
His  ministry  than  that  of  bishop.  The  Pope  of  Rome, 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Presiding  Bishop 
of  the  Church  in  the  United  States,  are  by  divine 
appointment  simply  bishops  ;  by  human  arrangement 
they  hold  the  respective  positions  on  earth  indicated 
by  these  names.  The  Catholic  Church,  then,  in  its 
corporate  union  by  divine  constitution,  is  a  kingdom 
with  its  King  on  His  throne  in  heaven.  His  imme- 
diate deputies  on  earth  are  bishops  who  prolong  in 
time  the  radii  which  carried  the  original  official  com- 
mission from  His  divine  human  person  on  the  Mount 
of  Ascension  to  the  eleven,  and  subsequently  to  the 
twelfth,  St.  Matthias.  They,  under  Him,  have  the 
plenitude  of  official  power.  The  original  eleven,  act- 
ing under  their  Lord,  not  only  created  an  equal  in 
filling  Judas'  place  with  St.  Matthias,  but  also  ap- 
pointed successors  who  would  take  their  places  when 
they  were  removed  by  death,  besides  they  called  into 


xxvi  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

being  the  diaconate,  to  which  they  delegated  a  cer- 
tain portion  of  their  powers,  and  the  priesthood  or 
presbyterate  to  which  they  added  other  powers  be- 
yond those  of  the  diaconate,  but  not  all  their  powers, 
reserving  to  themselves  pre-eminently  the  power  of 
ordination.  "  All  power,"  said  our  Lord,  "  is  given 
unto  me.  Go  ye  therefore  teach,  preach,  baptize." 
Spiritual  power  comes  from  above,  not  from  beneath, 
from  Christ,  the  Head,  the  King  on  His  throne  in 
heaven  to  the  Apostles  as  officers,  the  highest  offi- 
cers by  divine  appointment  on  earth,  and  through 
them  the  spiritual  power  for  the  same  blessed  pur- 
poses of  governing,  administering,  and  preserving 
Christ's  kingdom  on  earth  is  continued  in  their  offi- 
cial successors,  the  bishops,  who  are  over  the  churches 
in  all  lands.  The  Catholic  Church  as  constituted 
by  God,  as  appears  in  Scripture  and  early  ecclesias- 
tical history  runs  a  parallel  with  the  kingdom  of 
nature,  the  head  is  in  the  skies,  the  ministers  are  on 
earth,  and  receive  from  Him  and  dispense  His  good 
gifts.  The  sun  of  righteousness,  like  the  natural 
sun,  is  above  the  clouds,  and  sheds  His  light  and 
heat  and  life-giving  power  from  above  through 
earthly  ministries  in  all  lands,  and  is  the  common 
property  of  all,  and  belongs  exclusively  to  none. 
Romanism,  by  which  we  mean  the  system  of  Church 
government  as  formulated  and  now  held  as  de  Jide,  as 
"  of  faith,"  by  the  Roman  communion,  is  the  direct 
antithesis  of  Catholicism.  Catholicism  is  universal, 
Romanism  is  local.  Catholicism  looks  to  Christ  in 
heaven  as  the  Head,  Romanism  looks  to  the  Pope  on 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER,  xxvii 

earth  as  the  head.  Catholicism  recognizes  freedom 
regulated  by  law  as  the  inheritance  of  all  lands,  Ro- 
manism subjects  all  to  the  absolute  will  and  control 
of  one  man.  Catholicism  appeals  to  Scripture  and 
ecclesiastical  history  in  vindication  of  its  essential 
principles  and  lines  of  action.  Romanism  super- 
sedes both  and  substitutes  the  unlimited  will  of  one 
bishop  as  the  absolute  arbiter  and  judge  in  all  mat- 
ters of  faith  and  morals.  Catholicism  embodies  and 
reduces  to  practice  in  their  best  sense  the  democratic 
and  oligarchic  principles  ;  it  recognizes  fully  the 
rights  and  makes  provision  for  the  expression  of  the. 
voice  of  the  people^  and  it  places  over  them  in  the 
Lord  the  sacred  ministry  to  win,  persuade,  teach, 
and  guide  them,  and  execute  their  w^ill.  Romanism 
is  an  absolute  unlimited  monarchy.  Its  sovereign, 
the  Pope,  is  above  all  and  controlled  by  none.  In 
theory  the  clergy  and  laity  under  their  system  have 
no  will  much  less  a  voice.  Let  us  clearly  under- 
stand the  essence  of  Romanism,  the  root  error  which 
is  the  parent,  and  the  nourisher,  and  protector  of  the 
whole  system  of  doctrinal  error  and  practical  corrup- 
tion which  Rome  endorses  and  owns.  This  root 
error  is  her  theory  of  church  government.  On  this 
everything  else  turns,  to  this  everything  else  ulti- 
mately comes.  "  The  supremacy  of  the  Pope  "  ex- 
presses the  idea.  This  means  that  the  Pope  is  in 
the  place  of  Christ  as  the  head  and  centre  of  the 
Church.  He  is  above  all  and  different  from  all.  No 
limitations  can  be  put  upon  his  will,  since  as  a  logi- 
cal outcome  of  the  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  the 


xxviii  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

Pope  is,  as  the  Roman  Church  now  teaches,  infalli- 
ble. The  Holy  Ghost  imparts  to  him  the  supernat- 
ural [^ift  which  secures  him  officially,  within  the  sphere 
of  faith  and  morals,  from  falling  into  error.  Coun- 
cils, if  convened,  simply  assemble  to  record  his  con- 
clusions. Clergy  and  laity,  if  they  speak,  simply 
open  their  lips  to  echo  his  sentiments  and  wishes. 
The  Roman  theory  of  church  government  makes  the 
Pope  the  universal  monarch.  The  whole  earth  is 
his  diocese,  and  he  is  by  Christ's  commission  the 
one  bishop  of  the  entire  world.  There  are  in  the 
Roman  communion,  it  is  true,  cardinals,  and  arch- 
bishops, and  bishops,  but  these  are  merely  agents  of 
the  Pope,  acting  in  his  place,  because  he  cannot,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  as  a  man,  be  everywhere,  they 
simply  represent  him.  He  appoints  them  all,  and  if 
the  local  authorities  are  allowed  to  suggest  nominees 
for  his  preference,  this  is  not  by  right,  but  only  by 
permission.  Romanism  replaces  Judaism,  and  so 
utterly  fails  to  satisfy  the  prophecies  which  have 
gone  before  declaring  the  nature,  and  scope,  and 
character  of  the  Catholic  Church.  "  In  Judah  is 
God  known  ;  His  name  is  great  in  Israel,''  *  is  the 
genius  of  Judaism.  By  God's  express  arrangement 
it  was  a  local  religion,  its  successor,  the  Church  of 
Christ,  as  the  prophets  declare,  was  to  be  catholic, 
world-wide,  universal.  Romanism  replaces  Judaism, 
and  so  fails  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  prophecy  which 
demand  an  economy  in  contradistinction  to  Judaism, 
„ji , . . . _— — . — 

••'  Psalms  Ixxvi.  I. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER,  xxix 

not  local,  not  national,  but  diffusive,  equally  at  home 
in  all  lands  and  among  all  peoples.  Romanism  re- 
places, we  say,  Judaism,  Italy  takes  the  place  of 
Palestine,  Rome  that  of  Jerusalem,  the  Vatican  that 
of  the  Temple,  and  the  Pope  that  of  the  High  Priest. 
Every  Jew  was  obliged,  wherever  he  might  be  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  to  look  toward  Jerusalem  for  his 
spiritual  privileges  and  blessings.  Daniel  in  Baby- 
lon opens  his  window  toward  Jerusalem  when  he 
prays,  the  Eunuch  comes  from  Ethiopia  to  Jerusalem 
to  worship,  so  precisely  every  subject  of  the  Pope 
must  look  to  Rome  for  his  ministry  and  sacraments. 
The  Pope  appoints  and  consecrates  his  bishop,  and 
so  the  Pope  and  the  Pope  alone  gives  him  his  spirit- 
ual life,  and  teaching,  and  sustenance.  Romanism 
is  thus  utterly  out  of  joint  with  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  the  word  of  prophecy  ;  it  is  equally  in- 
consistent with  the  New.  Romanism  asserts  that  our 
Lord  made  St.  Peter  the  sole  depository  of  ministe- 
rial gifts,  and  through  him  the  other  apostles  received. 
He  was  made  Christ's  vicar,  and  the  earth  was  given 
to  him  for  his  spiritual  possession.  His  successors 
in  his  chair  at  Rome  inherit  his  plenitude  of  power, 
and  so  they  are  to-day  precisely  what  he  was  officially 
when  he  ruled  from  Rome  the  Church  of  God  while 
he  was  alive.  We  have  seen  that  this  theory  is  abso- 
lutely inconsistent  with  the  original  and  fmal  charter 
and  commission  given  by  Christ  to  His  apostles  to 
plant  and  organize  His  church,  which  was  to  come 
into  being  ten  days  after  He  had  spoken  and  acted. 
The  whole  scene,  the  grouping  of  the  persons,  as 


XXX  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER, 

well  as  the  words  spoken,  cannot  by  any  ingenuity 
be  brought  into  harmony  with  papal  supremacy. 
Our  Lord  does  not  have  St.  Peter  resting  on  His 
breast  and  allow  the  others  to  ask  him  what  is  said, 
but  He  addresses  directly  all  alike,  and  bids  them 
**  go  ye,"  ''  teach  ye,"  *'  baptize  ye."  Compare  this 
picture  with  our  Lord  as  the  centre,  as  the  head,  and 
the  apostles  around  Him,  with  Romanism,  which 
presents  the  Church  with  St.  Peter  locked  in  our 
Lord's  embrace,  and  his  fellow  disciples  beneath 
him,  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount,  looking  up  to  him, 
and  learning  from  his  mouth  what  Jesus  says,  and  it 
Avill  be  seen  that  the  two  are  absolutely  inconsistent. 
Again,  take  another  point  of  comparison  out  of 
many  which  might  be  presented,  and  see  how  utterly 
irreconcilable  Catholicity  and  Romanism  are.  St. 
Peter,  remember,  in  the  theory  of  Roman  supremacy, 
was  precisely  what  the  Pope  is.  The  Bishop  of 
Rome  derives  his  prerogatives,  and  powers,  and 
privileges  from  St.  Peter.  The  stream  cannot  rise 
above  its  fountain,  the  present  Pope  cannot  be 
higher  than  St.  Peter.  He  cannot,  in  relation  to  his 
cardinals,  be  more  than  St.  Peter  was  to  his  fellow 
apostles.  In  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Acts  we  read 
that,  "  when  the  apostles,  which  were  at  Jerusalem, 
heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God, 
they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John."  Imagine  the 
College  of  Cardinals  to-day  sending  the  Pope  and 
the  Bishop  of  Ostia  on  a  confirmation  tour  to  Flor- 
ence or  Naples.  The  very  idea  is  absurd.  The 
Chiirch  of   Rome   is   responsible   for   holding   and 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxxi 

teaching  that  St.  Peter  sat  and  presided  as  her  first 
bishop  for  five  and  twenty  years.  During  this  inter- 
val St.  Paul  addressed  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
Can  it  be  conceived  that  if  St.  Peter  were  what  the 
Pope  claims  to  be,  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  would 
absolutely  ignore  the  presence  and  jurisdiction,  not 
merely  of  his  colleague  and  equal,  but  his  superior 
upon  whom  he  depended  for  his  official  existence 
and  mission  ?  Is  it  possible  that  St.  Paul  could  have 
withstood  St.  Peter  to  the  face  because  he  was  to  be 
blamed  '^  had  he  enjoyed  the  place  and  prerogatives 
which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  claims  to  possess  to-day  ? 
The  words  of  St.  Paul,  had  they  occurred  in  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Peter,  would  doubtless  have  replaced 
the  text  which  now  surrounds  the  dome  of  St.  Peter's, 
because  they  would  have  been  much  more  to  the  pur- 
pose of  supporting  the  Papal  claims  than  the  declar- 
ation of  our  Lord  to  St.  Peter.  St.  Paul  says  : 
"  Besides  those  things  that  are  without,  that  which 
cometh  upon  me  daily,  the  care  of  all  the  churches." 
(2  Cor.  xi.  28).  How  accurately  does  this  state- 
ment describe  the  practical  duties  of  the  Pope  in 
accordance  with  the  theory  of  Roman  supremacy  ! 
But  the  statement  is  made  by  St.  Paul,  not  by  St. 
Peter ;  and  it  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the 
sovereignty  of  St.  Peter  and  his  alleged  successors 
in  the  See  of  Rome.  Our  Lord's  words  to  St. 
Peter,  ^^  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 

"'^Galatians  ii.  11. 


xxxu  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

vail  against  it," '"  are  now  the  stronghold  of  the  Roman 
controversialist  in  seeking  to  maintain  his  cause  from 
Holy  Scripture.  If  this  be  all,  how  weak  his  case 
must  be  !  It  must  be  all,  or  next  to  all  he  has  to 
allege  in  favor  of  his  monstrous  claims  for  the  Pope, 
since  he  makes  the  most  of  his  single  text.  He 
places  it  on  the  dome  of  his  great  cathedral,  he 
adduces  it  on  every  occasion,  he  brings  it  forward  to 
settle  every  controversy,  he  flings  it  with  triumph  at 
the  head  of  every  adversary,  it  is  his  great  his  almost 
only  resource.  How  far  removed  it  is  from  giving 
support  to  what  the  Pope  claims  to-day,  a  moment's 
consideration  v/ill  show.  Our  Lord  had  asked  a 
question,  and  in  doing  so  asserted  a  fact.  "  Whom 
do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?  "  The  ques- 
tion v/hich  He  puts  is  what  men's  estimate  of  Him 
is,  the  fact  which  He  asserts  is  that  He  is  the  Son  of 
of  Man,  that  is,  the  perfect  man.  St.  Peter  responds, 
when  our  Lord  presses  the  inquiry  still  further,  "but 
whom  do  ye  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ? "  with 
the  reply,  ''  I  say  that  Thou,  the  Son  of  Man,  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  Here  we  have 
the  confession  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  in 
its  fullness,  the  acknowledgment  of  the  perfect 
divinity  in  the  affirming  "  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God," 
and  the  acknowledgment  of  His  perfect  humanity 
in  the  acceptance  of  our  Lord's  assertion,  "  that  He 
is  the  Son  of  Man."  It  is  the  first  time  this  declara- 
tion of  the  Catholic  faith  in  its  fullness  had  fallen 

^St.  Matt.  xvi.  i8. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxxiii 

from  human  lips.  These  factors,  the  believing  in 
the  heart,  and  the  confession  with  the  mouth,  make 
the  living  stones  with  which  the  spiritual  temple,  the 
church,  is  to  be  built,  and  St.  Peter  is  the  lirst  of 
these  living  stones  by  the  grace  of  God  into  which 
these  elements  enter,  and  our  Lord,  the  foundation 
stone,  the  corner  stone,  accepts  him  as  the  first,  and 
places  him  on  Himself,  and  rewards  him  with  the 
promise  that  on  him,  Peter,  in  thus  believing  and 
making  profession  of  his  faith,  all  others  who  in 
future  shall  believe  and  proclaim  their  faith,  shall  be 
built.  This  is  literally  true  ;  no  one  ever  has,  or  does, 
or  can  believe  in  the  incarnation,  the  Catholic  faith, 
without  following  the  example  of  St.  Peter,  and  be- 
coming like  him  a  living  stone  and  taking  his  place 
in  one  or  other  of  the  two  walls  which  meet  and  rest 
upon  the  sure  foundation  corner  stone,  which  is 
Christ.  The  divine  history  of  the  New  Testament 
goes  still  further  to  illustrate  and  explain  these 
words  of  our  Lord  to  St.  Petej:.  He  who  first  be- 
came a  living  stone  by  believing  and  confessing  was 
chosen  to  be  the  first  to  proclaim  this  faith  to  others, 
and  win  them  to  accept  and  own  it,  and  so  through 
the  spirit  of  God  to  convert  them  from  dead  stones 
into  living  stones,  and  build  them  with  his  own  hand 
into  the  spiritual  temple.  This  he  did  both  to  the 
Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  Gentiles  in 
the  persons  of  Cornelius  and  his  household.  These 
incidents  in  St.  Peter's  life  are  not  accidental,  as 
men  count  occurrences  ;  they  are  crucial,  signal 
acts,  designed  and  arranged  by  God  Himself.     St. 

2 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER, 

Peter  challenges  attention  to  this  himself  when  he 
says  to  his  assembled  colleagues  and  brethren  in  the 
council  at  Jerusalem,  "  God  made  choice  among  us, 
that  the  Gentiles  by  my  mouth  should  hear  the 
word  of  the  Gospel,  and  believe." 

The  significance  of  the  facts  is  great.  St.  Peter, 
by  divine  arrangement,  first  puts  forth  his  hand  and 
takes  the  stones  from  the  Jewish  quarry  and  places 
them  on  the  corner  stone  in  the  one  wall,  and  then, 
by  the  same  appointment,  he  first  puts  forth  his 
hand  again  and  takes  the  stones  from  the  Gentile 
quarry  and  places  them  on  the  corner  stone  in  the 
other  wall,  and  thus  historically  he  fulfills  in  his  own 
person  the  promise  of  our  Lord  in  that  he  begins 
the  building  of  the  two  walls  which  meet  and  rest 
upon  and  are  bound  together  by  the  corner  stone, 
Christ.  What  connection  have  the  declaration  and 
the  promise,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  Church  "  with  the  claims  of  the  pres- 
ent or  any  previous  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  It  is  difficult 
to  see.  Whatever  they  suggest,  they  do  not  imply 
any  successors  to  whom  the  name  and  the  privilege 
will  descend,  they  do  not  convey  the  idea  of  any  offi- 
cial gift  which  was  to  be  transmitted  to  others  ;  they 
simply  affirm  a  fact  that  the  great  apostle  in  first 
grasping  with  the  mind  and  believing  with  the  heart 
and  professing  with  the  mouth  the  Catholic  faith, 
justified  the  name  long  since  given  to  him,  and  be- 
came a  living  stone,  the  first  of  those  which  should 
be  added  until  the  building  was  complete,  resting 
upon  the   same   foundation,  Christ,  the   Rock,  the 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxxv 

living  God.  Such  a  discussion  might  be  prolonged, 
but  an  introduction  must  have  limits,  and  we  will 
close  with  calling  attention  to  a  difficulty  which  is 
fatal  to  the  continuance  of  the  powers  and  privileges 
of  St.  Peter  as  claimed  by  the  Papal  theory  of  church 
government,  even  granting  that  they  once  existed. 
In  the  polity  of  the  Catholic  Church  provision  is 
made  for  the  transmission  of  the  grace  of  orders  by 
the  apostolical  canon,  ^'  Let  a  bishop  be  consecrated 
by  two  or  three  bishops,"  and  by  the  Nicene  enact- 
ment that  three  bishops  at  least  must  unite  in  conse- 
crating a  new  bishop.  Here  equals  create  an  equal, 
and  the  apostolical  succession  is  not,  as  it  is  fre- 
quently and  erroneously  alleged,  a  chain  of  single 
links^  but  a  network  of  innumerable  strands.  In  the 
polity  of  the  Roman  obedience,  however,  the  Papal 
succession  is  not  only  a  chain  of  single  links,  but,  won- 
derful to  relate,  with  only  a  few  exceptions,  the  links 
are  all  disconnected,  separated  generally  by  weeks, 
frequently  by  months,  sometimes  by  years.  The 
doctrine  of  Roman  supremacy  teaches  that  the  Pope 
is  above  all,  that  he  is  invented  with  powers  which 
no  one  else  on  earth  possesses.  All  are  beneath  him 
in  official  power,  and  privilege,  and  dignity.  He  is 
sui  generis.  When  the  Pope  dies,  therefore,  where 
are  his  powers,  and  privileges,  and  prerogatives  ? 
No  human  being  possesses  them.  After  an  interval 
a  new  Pope  is  chosen  ;  how  does  he  recover  these 
powers,  not  by  the  hands  of  any  earthly  ecclesiastic, 
since  there  is  none  that  has  them  to  bestow.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  Pope  must  descend 


xxxvi  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

to  the  level  of  the  congregational  minister,  and  affirm 
that  his  official  status  is  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
people,  or  their  representatives  in  the  Roman  system, 
the  cardinals.  But  this  involves  the  absurdity  of 
admitting  that  the  stream  can  rise  higher  than  the 
fountain,  that  it  is  possible  to  give  to  another  what 
you  do  not  possess  yourself  ;  or  else  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  may  say  that  he  has  the  inward  call  and  an- 
nointing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  he  himself  is 
alone  the  judge  and  witness  in  the  premises,  and  so 
he  takes  his  place  side  by  side  with  the  self-appointed 
and  constituted  ministries  of  the  religious  bodies 
around  us.  Extremes  meet,  ultra  Romanism  and 
ultra  Protestantism  unite  in  a  hundred  points.  In 
opposite  ways,  unintentionally,  they  both  help  for- 
ward the  cause  of  infidelity  and  rebellion  against 
God.  From  opposite  motives,  yet  with  equal  zeal, 
they  both  unite  in  seeking  to  oppose  and  beat  down 
and  destroy  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  This  little 
book  is  directed  against  errors,  not  men  ;  it  is  in- 
tended to  present  the  case  in  a  calm,  argumentative 
way  as  far  removed  from  bitterness  and  ill-temper  as 
possible.  We  sincerely  trust  that  this  introduction 
breathes  the  same  spirit.  Such,  at  least,  is  our  pur- 
pose ;  it  has  been  our  aim  to  follow  the  apostolic 
precept,  and  speak  the  truth  in  love. 
George  F.  Seymour, 

Bishop  of  Springfield, 
New  York,  August  30,   1883. 


THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  QUESTION  STATED, 

The  influence  and  claims  of  the  Roman  Church— Importance  of  the 
question — A  serious  matter  to  pass  from  the  Enghsh  Church  to 
the  Roman,  or  vice  versa — A  truth  forgotten — Above  all,  necessary 
to  understand  the  real  grounds  on  which  such  a  change  should 
be  made — Some  assigned  reasons  for  changing  utterly  insufficient 
— Restlessness  and  unhappiness  —  Personal  inchnation  —  Abuses 
in  the  Church — Only  one  reason  for  changing  sufficient :  that  the 
claims  of  the  Papal  See  are  valid  ;  that  they  are  supported  by 
Scripture  and  the  primitive  Church — Is  the  Papal  supremacy,  as 
at  present  claimed,  of  divine  right  or  not  ?  This  the  whole  ques- 
tion— ^ Papal  statement  of  this  question — Such  claims  must  be  fully 
substantiated — The  object  of  this  book  to  examine  the  grounds  on 
which  they  rest. 

There  are  two  questions  which  will  naturally  arise  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  study  carefully  and  devoutly  the 
religious  history  of  our  own  times.  In  view  of  events 
which  are  passing  before  us,  they  will  be  constrained 
to  ask :  What  is  the  secret  of  the  influence  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  undoubtedly  exerts  over  certain  classes 
of  character  ?  And  perhaps  a  second  question  may  be 
worthy  of  attention  on  the  part  of  those  who  think  the 

A 


2  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS. 

first  very  easy  of  solution  :  How  is  it,  if  the  claims  of  the 
Roman  Church  are  so  strong,  that  multitudes  of  single- 
minded,  devout,  and  learned  men  do  not  yield  to  them? 
nay,  that  some  who  may  certainly  be  thus  described, 
have  recently  left  her  communion  ? 

In  any  case,  the  question  of  our  relation  to  the  Church 
of  Rome  cannot  be  ignored ;  and  its  importance  is  very 
widely  felt.  It  may  be  that  the  gravity  of  the  case 
has  been  exaggerated.  It  w^ould,  indeed,  appear  that  the 
secessions  to  Rome  are  by  no  means  so  numerous  as  the 
popular  imagination  had  represented  them.  Still  they 
do  occur  not  unfrequently,  and  are  often  attended  by 
the  most  calamitous  consequences  in  families.  It  is 
also  widely  believed  that  a  convert  will  leave  no  stone 
unturned  in  order  to  induce  others  to  take  the  same 
course  ;  and  it  does  happen,  from  time  to  time,  that 
persons  are  brought  under  the  influence  of  the  Roman 
Church  in  such  a  manner  as  to  arouse  very  grave  suspi- 
cions as  to  the  kind  of  warfare  which  the  members  and 
ministers  of  that  Church  think  lawful  in  order  to  gain 
their  ends. 

We  refrain  from  dwelling  upon  this  aspect  of  the  sub- 
ject, because  it  is  our  wish  and  intention  to  treat  this 
question,  as  far  as  may  be,  without  prejudice,  and  especi- 
ally without  offering  what  might  be  regarded  as  insults 
to  another  communion  or  to  its  members.  Truth  and 
charity  alike  suffer  from  a  mode  of  controversy  which 
seems  to  care  more  for  personal  triumph  than  for  the 
assertion  of  that  w^iich  God  has  revealed ;  which  seems 
to  delight  more  in  wounding  an  adversary,  than  in  con- 
vincing and  converting  him. 

Let  us,  then,  assume  as  our  starting-point  a  principle 


THE  QUESTION  STATED,  3 

which  will  be  conceded  by  Romans  and  Reformed  alike. 
It  will  be  admitted,  on  all  sides,  that  it  is  a  very  serious 
thing  to  change  one's  religious  convictions — to  pass  over 
from  one  communion  to  another ;  and  this  general  prin- 
ciple will  not  be  weakened  when  it  is  applied  to  a  change 
so  great  and  momentous  as  the  passing  from  the  Church 
of  England  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  the  reverse. 

Roman  Catholics  will  be  the  first  to  assert  this  principle 
with  all  earnestness,  when  it  is  applied  to  those  who  are 
tempted  or  solicited  to  leave  themselves.  We  know  what 
they  think  and  what  they  say  of  Father  Hyacinthe,  of 
Dr.  Dollinger,  and  of  others  who  have  recently  broken 
with  the  Papal  authority.  But  the  principle  is  of  uni- 
versal application.  This  can  be  denied  only  on  the 
assumption  that  one  side  is  certainly  right,  and  the  other 
certainly  wrong;  and  this  is  an  assumption  which  a 
controversialist  cannot  be  allowed  to  make.  We  concede 
to  others ;  we  demand  that  the  same  concession  shall 
be  made  to  ourselves  \  that  those  who  are  brought  up  in 
a  certain  faith  should  have  good  and  sufficient  reasons 
for  making  such  a  change  before  they  relinquish  it. 

It  may  seem  unnecessary  to  insist  upon  so  obvious  a 
truism,  but  it  is  unfortunately  a  truth  which,  however 
obvious,  is  constantly  ignored.  Men  and  women  trifle 
with  their  convictions,  allow  doubts  of  all  kinds  to  under- 
mine the  beliefs  in  which  they  have  grown  up,  without 
giving  a  thought  to  the  solemn  responsibility  which 
belongs  to  such  a  proceeding,  or  the  consequences — 
abiding  and  irremediable — which  may  flow  to  themselves 
and  others  from  the  course  on  which  they  are  entering. 

It  is  becoming  more  and  more  necessary  to  protest 
against  this  dangerous  species  of  levity.     We  have  no 


4  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS, 

mind  to  insult  the  Roman  Church  or  its  new  converts. 
We  have  taken  as  our  motto  '^speaking  the  truth  in 
love,"  and  we  will  endeavour  to  verify  it.  The  truth  we 
will  speak  as  far  as  we  are  able  ;  and  in  love  as  far  as 
God  may  give  us  grace.  Indeed,  we  are  sure  that  those 
who  love  truth  supremely,  far  better  than  their  own 
opinions  and  views  of  truth,  will  necessarily  speak  it  in 
love,  since  they  are  contending  for  nothing  which  is 
really  their  own. 

In  this  spirit,  then,  we  solemnly  protest  against  the 
levity  which  first  assumes  that  the  Papal  claims  are  true 
and  valid,  and  then  professes  calmly  to  investigate  the 
grounds  upon  which  they  repose.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
is  done  every  day.  Persons  are  taken  with  something 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  many  are  awed  by  its  lofty 
claims  and  pretensions ;  some  are  attracted  by  its  impres- 
sive ritual,  some  by  its  wonderful  history;  and  the 
resolution  to  submit  to  those  influences  is  as  good  as 
formed  before  there  has  been  any  serious  consideration 
of  the  grounds  upon  which  such  a  resolution  should  be 
taken. 

To  persons  who  are  bent  upon  treating  their  religious 
responsibiHties  in  this  spirit,  we  fear  there  is  nothing  to 
be  said.  They  are  swayed  by  inclination,  or  by  the 
accident  of  their  circumstances,  not  by  any  real  desire 
to  know  what  is  true,  nor  by  any  serious  resolution  to 
follow  out  their  convictions  when  they  have  been 
thoughtfully  and  rationally  formed. 

To  those,  however,  who  realize  the  responsibility 
involved  in  considering  such  a  question,  and  who  may 
yet  be  capable  of  giving  attention  to  the  whole  bearings 
of  the  controversy,  we  wish  in  this  introductory  chapter 


THE  QUESTION  STATED.  5 

to  say  a  few  words  on  the  real  nature  of  the  question 
which  has  to  be  settled  before  an  English  Churchman, 
for  example,  can  have  a  right  to  leave  his  own  com- 
munion and  join  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  In  a 
measure,  these  v/ords  must  of  necessity  be  words  of 
warning ;  we  are  bound  first  of  all  to  point  out  certain 
considerations  by  which  persons  are  influenced  in  this 
matter,  which  can  by  no  means  be  regarded  as  reasons 
for  making  such  a  change.  But  this  is  only  preliminary  : 
it  is  our  principal  business  to  ascertain  clearly  the  very 
point  which  must  be  decided  one  way  or  the  other,  before 
we  resolve  to  reject  or  to  accept  the  Papal  claims ;  and 
to  this  particular  subject  the  chief  part  of  this  volume 
will  be  dedicated. 

Roman  Catholics  will  not  deny  that  there  are  Protes- 
tants who  join  their  Church  without  knowing  why  they 
ought  to  do  so  \  even  as  they  would  assert,  and  as  we 
should  concede,  that  there  are  others  who  leave  the 
Roman  Communion  on  grounds  which  are  equally 
insufficient.  We  are  all  agreed  that  this  should  not  be 
done.  However  we  may  reduce  our  opinions  to  practice, 
no  one  really  thinks  that  he  or  any  one  else  has  any 
right  whatever  to  make  a  change  so  momentous  without 
having  reasons,  good,  solid,  and  sufficient,  for  doing  so. 

Could  it  be  said — we  ask  in  all  seriousness  and  charity 
— that  all  or  most  of  those  who  leave  the  Church  of 
England  for  the  Church  of  Rome  are  influenced  by  such 
reasons  as  would  justify  thoughtful  men  and  women  in 
taking  such  a  step  ?  Do  we  not  know,  on  the  contrary, 
that  many  take  this  step  under  the  influence  of  reasons 
or  motives  which  are  decidedly  insufficient  ?  And  if  so, 
it  becomes  a  serious  duty  to  ascertain,  as  far  as  we  are 


6  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS, 

able,  the  true  nature  of  the  question  on  which  such  a 
decision  should  turn.  By  this  means  we  shall  at  least 
satisfy  ourselves  that  the  conclusion  at  which  we  arrive, 
and  the  action  which  may  follow  upon  it,  result  from 
no  mere  caprice  or  passing  inclination,  but,  whether  in- 
themselves  right  or  wrong,  are  at  least  based  upon 
considerations  which  are  not  unworthy  of  rational  and 
responsible  creatures. 

As  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  many  persons  do  enter  the 
Roman  Communion,  for  reasons  which  an  educated 
Roman  Catholic  would  be  the  first  to  pronounce  in- 
sufficient. Whether  it  be  right  or  wrong  to  go  to  Rome, 
such  persons  have  clearly  no  moral  right  to  go,  because 
they  have  no  good  reason  for  doing  so.  Let  us  glance 
at  some  of  these  reasons. 

A  very  common  reason  for  joining  the  Roman  Commu- 
nion is  a  sense  of  restlessness,  unhappiness,  uncertainty. 
The  desire  to  be  at  rest  is  one  of  the  deepest  in  human 
nature.  An  utter  wilUngness  to  submit  to  the  Divine 
discipline  by  which  peace  may  be  attained  is  far  less 
common.  Those  who  long  for  rest  and  yet  do  not  know 
the  way  of  peace,  cast  about  for  some  shorter  road  to 
the  end  which  they  desire.  They  hear  of  people  going 
to  Rome  and  being  quite  calm  and  happy,  so  they 
think  they  will  go  too. 

No  wise  Roman  Catholic  will  think  this  a  valid  reason 
for  such  a  change.  What  would  he  think  of  a  member 
of  his  own  Church  who  became  a  Mahometan  or  even  a 
Protestant  for  such  a  reason  ?  As  far  as  the  mere  method 
is  concerned,  a  man  might  as  well  seek  for  peace  by 
taking  a  dose  of  opium.  Roman  Catholics  hold,  as  we  do, 
that  you  must  seek  for  ^*  peace  through  the  truth."     They 


I 


THE  QUESTION  STATED, 


believe,  as  we  believe,  that  such  a  gratification  of  a 
craving,  genuine  or  morbid,  is  unlawful ;  and  they  would 
join  in  warning  any  one  who  might  think  of  leaving  their 
own  communion  and  joining  another,  in  which  some 
friend  had  found  peace  and  rest,  that  he  was  trifling  with 
the  highest  interests  of  his  immortal  nature. 

Still  less  worthy  of  respect,  if  that  be  possible,  is  the 
state  of  mind  which  turns  to  the  Roman  system  because 
it  likes  it.  Such  a  reason  is,  indeed,  often  a  purely  local 
one.  The  services  of  the  Church  of  England  in  some 
particular  locality  may  be  cold  and  unattractive,  and 
those  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  same  locality  may 
be  the  reverse.  If  it  were  not  quite  certain  that  some 
people  do  for  this  reason  go  from  one  communion  to 
another,  it  would  seem  hardly  worth  while  even  to  men- 
tion the  case.  It  must  be  sufficient  to  note  it ;  it  would 
be  absurd  to  waste  words  upon  it,  further  than  to  utter  a 
brief,  earnest  warning  against  a  proceeding  so  utterly 
irrational. 

Akin  to  this,  although  perhaps  a  degree  more  respect- 
able, is  the  reason  for  change  which  arises  from  the 
existence  of  abuses  in  the  Church,  either  generally  or  in 
the  particular  locahty  with  which  one  may  happen  to  be 
acquainted.  On  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  dwell  for  a 
moment,  inasmuch  as  no  small  portion  of  religious  con- 
troversy has  frequently  turned  on  this  very  aspect  of  the 
question. 

Of  course,  there  is  a  true  side  to  an  argument  of  this 
kind.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  any  particular  system  or 
set  of  doctrines  had  been  regularly  productive  of  good  on 
the  one  side,  or  of  evil  on  the  other,  had  wrought  either 
happiness  or   misery   systematically  to  those  who  had 


8  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS. 

come  under  their  influence,  then  a  strong  case  would  be 
estabUshed  for  or  against  such  a  system,  according  to  its 
visible  and  manifest  effects. 

But  even  here  there  is  great  need  of  discrimination  in 
the  collection  of  facts.  Two  men,  starting  with  different 
prejudices  and  different  expectations,  will  find  the  very 
facts  before  their  eyes  widely  different,  and  the  conclusions 
which  they  draw  from  them  still  more  diverse.  Before 
these  can  be  of  any  real  value,  they  must  be  verified  by 
investigators  approaching  the  consideration  of  them 
from  different  points  of  view. 

But  even  a  prejudiced  consideration  of  a  wide  induc- 
tion of  facts  is  far  different  from  the  fault  against  which  we 
are  here  contending.  What  we  would  most  earnestly  warn 
people  against  is,  the  tendency  to  rush  from  one  system 
to  another,  because  of  manifest  faults  or  corruptions  in 
the  system  which  they  are  tempted  to  abandon,  faults 
which  belong  to  some  particular  place  or  time  perhaps, 
and  which  they  have  not  remarked  in  the  system  which 
they  think  of  espousing. 

Very  often  this  tendency  takes  the  form  of  discontent 
with  the  state  of  religion  in  some  particular  locality,  in 
utter  forgetfulness  of  the  fact  that,  if  the  rival  system 
were  known  as  widely  and  as  intimately,  similar  or 
greater  disadvantages  might  be  found  in  it.  Sometimes 
the  dissatisfaction  arises  from  the  study  of  some  parti- 
cular period  in  the  history  of  the  Church  j  and  people 
have  been  known  to  go  to  the  Church  of  Rome  because 
of  the  state  of  the  English  Church  in  the  eighteenth 
century;  whereas  the  condition  of  the  Roman  Church 
at  that  particular  time  was  no  better,  nor  indeed,  one 
might  almost  say,  of  any  other  Church. 


THE  QUESTION  STATED.  9 

Few  Roman  controversialists  will  employ  arguments 
like  these  in  defending  their  own  Church  or  in  assailing 
the  position  of  others.  Yet  not  a  few  of  those  who  are 
drawn  to  the  Roman  Communion  are  influenced  by  such 
considerations.  It  would  be  easy  to  retort,  it  would  be 
easy  to  gather  from  the  long  and  varied  history  of  the 
Latin  Church,  a  plentiful  crop  of  abuses  and  corruptions 
of  all  kinds  (perhaps  exceeding  all  that  is  known  to 
history  elswhere) ;  and  it  would  be  manifestly  unfair. 
Such  gleanings  could  be  of  no  value  for  their  purpose 
unless  they  could  be  shown  in  their  relation  to  the 
general  history  of  the  Church,  unless  they  could  be 
studied,  so  to  speak,  in  their  due  proportion. 

Such  arguments  will  find  no  place  in  these  pages. 
We  refer  to  them  now  only  to  warn  our  readers  against 
them.  A  person  may  have  one  of  two  reasons,  which 
to  him  seem  valid,  for  leaving  the  communion  of  the 
Church  of  England,  or  joining  that  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  If  he  believes  that  the  English  Church  is 
heretical  or  schismatical,  then  it  would  probably  be- 
come his  duty  to  leave  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
believes  that  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Church  are  well 
grounded,  then  he  can  have  no  right  to  refuse  submission 
to  its  authority.  Right  or  wrong,  these  are  intelligible 
reasons  for  making  such  a  change,  serious  as  it  may  be  ; 
and  one  who  has  arrived  at  definite  conclusions  respecting 
these  questions,  will  doubtless  feel  bound  to  give  effect  to 
his  convictions  by  taking  the  course  which  they  prescribe. 
But  surely  it  is  his  duty  to  make  careful  inquiry  on  these 
points,  to  ascertain  exactly  what  they  mean,  and  by 
what  arguments  the  claims  or  the  accusations  which  are 
advanced  may  be  sustained,  before  concluding  that  they 
are  fully  established. 


■ 


lo  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS, 

Thus,  the  Church  of  England  may  be  faulty  and  de- 
fective ;  but  that  can  be  no  reason  for  becoming  a  mem- 
ber of  a  foreign  communion,  unless  it  shows  claims  and 
credentials  such  as  can  hardly  be  resisted  or  set  aside. 
Whether  the  Church  of  England  is  heretical  in  its  teach- 
ing will  be  considered  at  the  end  of  this  book.  The 
main  question  with  which  we  have  to  deal  will  be  the 
claims  of  the  Roman  Church  and  of  the  Papal  See ;  for, 
unless  these  are  established,  it  is  of  little  use  to  prove 
any  number  of  abuses  in  the  Church  of  England.  A 
man  does  not  think  of  becoming  a  Frenchman  or  a 
German,  because  he  thinks  some  of  the  English  laws 
inequitable,  or  because  he  dislikes  some  of  the  customs 
of  its  people.  And  a  man  has  no  right  to  leave  the 
Church  to  which  he  belongs  merely  because  he  dis- 
approves of  something  in  it,  or  likes  another  Church 
better.  He  must  be  satisfied  that  that  other  Church  has 
claims  which  he  has  no  right  to  resist,  claims  to  which 
he  is  bound  to  yield  submission  and  obedience. 

Before  he  can  do  this  he  must  know  somewhat  accu- 
rately what  these  claims  are,  he  must  learn  the  grounds 
on  which  they  are  based,  and  he  must  satisfy  himself 
that  these  grounds  are  valid.  We  will  here,  therefore, 
endeavour  first  to  state  accurately  and  clearly  the  nature 
of  the  Papal  claims,  and  then  we  will  examine  the 
arguments  by  which  they  are  commended  to  our  ac- 
ceptance. 

According  to  the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Church,  St. 
Peter  was  appointed  supreme  teacher  and  governor  in 
the  Christian  Church,  to  whom  everything  in  doctrine 
and  in  discipline  should  be  referred  for  his  final  decision; 
and  these  powers  were  by  him  transmitted  to  his  sue- 


THE  Q  UES  nON  ST  A  TED,  i  r 

cessors  in  the  See  of  Rome,  who  were  to  exercise 
them  as  long  as  the  Christian  Church  should  exist  on 
earth. 

As  a  writer  who  formerly  belonged  to  the  Church  of 
England,  but  who  has  for  many  years  been  a  member  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  has  truly  said,  both  before  and 
after  his  secession,  *'  The  whole  question  between  the 
Roman  Church  and  ourselves,  as  well  as  the  Eastern 
Church,  turns  upon  the  Papal  supremacy,  as  at  present 
claimed,  being  of  Divine  right  or  not.'' 

This  supremacy  was  first  given  to  St.  Peter.  Accord- 
ing to  the  writer  just  quoted,  our  Lord  ^'marked  him 
out  for  a  peculiar  and  singular  office,  connected  him 
with  Himself  in  a  special  manner,  and  after  having  thus 
the  whole  of  His  ministry  given  him  tokens  and  intima- 
tions of  his  future  destination,  at  last  expi^essly  nominated 
him  to  take  His  own  place  and  preside  among  his  brethren^* 
This  position,  with  all  its  privileges,  rights,  and  powers, 
St.  Peter  handed  on  to  the  Roman  Pontiffs. 

That  there  may  be  no  doubt  or  question  as  to  the  nature 
and  significance  of  the  Papal  claims,  we  will  present 
them  as  they  are  stated  by  Pope  Pius  VI.,  in  words 
which,  to  use  the  expression  of  an  eminent  writer  of  the 
Roman  Church,  "he  pronounced  with  the  assent  and 
joyous  approval  of  the  whole  Catholic  world,"  in  the 
year  1786,  in  condemning  the  work  of  Eybel,  entitled 
"What  is  the  Pope?"  Here  are  his  words:  "That  in 
the  solidity  of  the  rock  the  Church  was  founded  by 
Christ,  and  by  an  especial  favour  Peter  was  chosen  by 
Him  before  the  other  apostles,  that  with  vicarious  power 
he  should  be  the  prince  of  the  apostolic  choir,  and  that 
he  should  take  upon  himself  the  supreme  supervision 


12  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS, 

and  authority — an  authority  to  be  transmitted  to  his 
successors  in  every  age — for  feeding  the  whole  flock,  for 
confirming  the  brethren,  for  binding  and  loosing  through- 
out the  whole  world ;  this  is  a  Catholic  dogma,  which 
the  whole  Church  hath  received  from  the  lips  of  Christ, 
which  she  hath  handed  down  and  defended  by  the  con- 
tinuous preaching  of  the  fathers,  which  she  hath  firmly 
held  in  all  times  with  holy  reverence,  and  often  against 
the  errors  of  innovators,  confirmed  by  decrees  of  popes 
and  of  councils.  In  this  pre-eminence  of  the  Apostolic 
See,  Christ  wished  that  the  bond  of  unity  should  be 
firmly  and  strongly  held,  whereby  the  Church,  destined 
to  spread  over  the  whole  world  and  to  be  composed  of 
members  ever  so  remote,  should,  by  the  union  of  all 
under  one  Head,  grow  into  a  firmly  knit  body." 

One  other  authority  may  be  adduced,  the  formal 
decision  of  the  Vatican  Council,  as  voted  on  the 
thirteenth  of  July  1870.  We  present  only  those  por- 
tions which  are  necessary  for  our  purpose.  In  the  first 
dogmatic  constitution  ^' On  the  Church  of  Christ,"*  it  is 
said  that  ^'  if  any  one  shall  say  that  the  blessed  Apostle 
Peter  was  not  constituted  by  Christ  our  Lord  the  prince 
of  all  the  apostles,  and  the  visible  head  of  the  whole 
Church  militant ;  or  that  he  received  this  directly  and 
immediately  from  the  same  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  only 
as  a  primacy  of  honour,  but  not  of  true  and  proper 
jurisdiction,  let  him  be  anathema." 

In  the  second  chapter  the  same  anathema  is  pro- 
nounced upon  any  one  who  shall  say  "that  it  is  not  of 

*  Commencing,  ^^ Pastor  ceternus.''^  The  whole  document  may  be 
seen  in  Friedrich's  Docnmenta  ad  Illustrandtim  Concilium  Vatica- 
numj  part  ii.  pp.  314-318. 


THE  QUESTION  ST  A  TED.  13 

the  institution  of  Christ  our  Lord  Himself,  or  by  Divine 
right,  that  blessed  Peter  has  perpetual  successors  in  the 
primacy  over  the  universal  Church ;  or  that  the  Roman 
Pontiff  is  not  the  successor  of  blessed  Peter  in  the  same 
primacy." 

In  the  third  chapter  an  anathema  is  pronounced  on 
any  one  who  shall  say  *^  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  has  only 
an  office  of  inspection  and  direction,  but  not  full  and 
supreme  power  of  jurisdiction  over  the  universal  Church, 
in  things  which  pertain  not  only  to  faith  and  morals,  but 
also  to  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  Church 
diffused  throughout  the  whole  world ;  or  that  he  has 
only  the  greater  part,  but  not  the  whole  plenitude  of 
this  supreme  power." 

The  fourth  chapter  deals  with  the  Papal  infallibility, 
which  it  asserts  to  be  independent  of  the  '^  consent  of 
the  Church."  But  this  is  a  question  which  concerns  those 
who  admit  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and  with  which 
we  need  not  here  concern  ourselves  except  incidentally. 
The  Papal  claims,  as  they  affect  those  who  are  external 
to  the  Roman  Communion,  are  stated  with  sufficient 
clearness  and  force  in  the  extracts  which  we  have  given. 

Higher  or  more  comprehensive  claims  could  hardly 
be  put  forward  j  and  two  things  become  at  once  obvious 
to  any  one  who  seriously  considers  their  nature :  first, 
that,  unless  they  can  be  substantiated,  no  one  can  have 
a  right  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope  by  enter- 
ing the  Roman  Communion,  because  in  so  doing  he 
would  be  affirming  what  he  regarded  as  false,  and 
accepting  an  authority  for  which  he  believed  there  was 
no  valid  foundation  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  that,  if  these 
claims  can  be  substantiated,  then  we  are  under  the  most 


14  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS. 

solemn  obligation  to  seek  admission  to  the  communion 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  whatever  it  may  cost,  whatever 
sacrifice  it  may  involve. 

If  these  pretensions  of  the  Roman  See  are  valid,  then 
they  are  in  the  right  who  say  that  to  be  out  of  com- 
munion with  Rome  is  to  be  out  of  Peter,  and  to  be  out 
of  Peter  is  to  be  out  of  Christ.  In  this  case,  as  we  have 
said,  no  sacrifice  can  be  too  great  to  make  in  submitting 
to  an  authority  which  can  claim  to  represent  the  autho- 
rity of  Christ  and  of  God.  If  the  Pope  be  the  Vicar 
of  Christ,  with  plenary  authority  received  from  Him  to 
teach  and  to  govern,  then  we  must  not  take  counsel  of 
flesh  and  blood,  we  must  simply  yield  ourselves  to  his 
rule  as  to  the  government  of  the  Most  High. 

But  surely  those  who  advocate  such  claims  will  allow 
that,  when  pretensions  of  a  character  so  awful  are  put 
forward,  they  ought  to  be  investigated  with  no  ordinary 
care,  and  evidences,  which  are  virtually  irresistible,  should 
be  demanded  and  provided,  before  a  conclusion  is  ac- 
cepted which  must  draw  after  it  such  responsibilities  and 
duties.  It  is  to  the  consideration  of  these  evidences 
that  the  main  part  of  this  book  will  be  dedicated.  We 
believe  that,  in  examining  them,  our  supreme  regard  will 
be  for  truth,  and  our  supreme  concern  to  discover  what 
is  true  on  the  subject  of  the  Papal  claims.  If  this  pro- 
fession be  well  founded,  then,  however  solemn  the  feeling 
of  responsibility  with  which  we  enter  upon  the  discussion, 
it  will  at  least  be  possible  to  carry  it  on  without  passion 
or  bitterness,  remembering  that  only  truth  can  be  bene- 
ficial to  ourselves  and  others,  as  the  real  teaching  of 
Him  Whom  we  profess  to  serve. 

There  are,  of  course,  other  subordinate  questions  in 


THE  Q  UESTION  ST  A  TED,  1 5 

this  controversy,  such  as  the  validity  of  English  orders, 
the  orthodoxy  of  Anglican  doctrine,  and  some  other 
related  topics.  On  the  question  of  English  orders  we 
do  not  propose  here  to  enter.  On  the  subject  of 
Anglican  orthodoxy,  a  chapter  will  be  found  at  the  end 
of  the  book.  One  chapter,  the  second,  will  be  given 
to  a  consideration  of  the  objection  brought  against  the 
English  Church,  as  not  being  a  part  of  that  holy  Catholic 
Church  which  is  commemorated  in  the  creeds.  It 
seemed  desirable  to  deal  first  briefly  with  this  topic,  as 
it  would  probably  recur  to  the  minds  of  some  of  our 
readers  during  their  consideration  of  the  other  portions 
of  the  book.  We  must,  however,  point  out  that  the 
great  question  has  reference  to  the  Papal  position  and 
claims.  If  the  Pope  has  this  authority  from  God,  to 
which  he  lays  claim,  then  there  is  nothing  for  us  but  to 
submit  to  it ;  if  he  has  not,  then,  however  much  any  one 
may  prefer  Roman  customs,  observances,  or  ritual,  he 
must  resist  it  to  the  death. 


(     i6    ) 


CHAPTER  II. 

ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

Roman  Appeal :  Those  who  believe  in  one  Catholic  Church  can  find 
that  Church  only  in  the  Roman  Communion — Grant  that  Christ 
intended  the  Church  to  be  one,  and  schism  is  a  sin — Who  is  to 
blame  for  the  schism  ? — How  can  it  be  lawfully  healed  ? — The  real 
facts  of  the  case  frequently  ignored — What  is  the  true  basis  of 
union? — The  question  of  the  Papal  claims  must  be  settled — If  they 
are  invalid,  the  Papacy  the  real  cause  of  disunion — Duty  of  indivi- 
duals— Illustration  from  the  Old  Testament — On  what  grounds  are 
the  Papal  claims  supported  ? — Three  principal  reasons — The  only 
valid  proof. 

A  COMMON  argument  by  which  it  is  sought  to  enforce 
the  claims  of  the  Roman  Church  is  derived  from  the 
unity  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  and  we  have  reason  to 
think  that  many  English  Churchmen  have  been  in- 
fluenced by  it.  Let  us  endeavour  to  state  this  argu- 
ment fairly,  and  then  to  examine  its  force. 

You  believe  in  the  Catholic  Church — this  is  the  form 
of  the  argument — that  belief  is  part  of  your  confession. 
In  the  Apostles'  Creed  you  say,  *'  I  believe  in  the 
holy  Catholic  Church  ;  "  in  the  Nicene  Creed  you 
declare,  **  I  believe  one  [holy]  Catholic  and  Apos- 
tolic Church."  What  do  you  mean  by  this  Church  ? 
Are  you  really  a  member  of  it  ?  Do  you  think  that  the 
English  Church  is  a  portion  of  it  ? 


ARGUMEN2'  FROM  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.     17 

We  have  no  wish  to  evade  this  question,  or  to 
escape  from  its  force  by  any  side  issue.  We  beUeve 
that  Jesus  Christ  has  a  Church  on  earth,  a  visible 
society  which  He  estabhshed  by  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  that  He 
intended  that  all  His  followers  should  be  members 
of  that  society.  We  further  beUeve  that  our  Blessed 
Lord  intended  that  this  society  should  be  one,  and 
that  it  should  realize  on  earth,  as  far  as  that  might  be 
possible,  the  communion  of  saints.  It  can  hardly  be 
denied  either,  if  these  statements  are  true,  that  the 
culpable  breaking  of  that  unity  must  be  a  sin,  and  not 
a  matter  of  indifference  as  many  regard  it.  These  are 
statements  which  we  hold  to  be  all  perfectly  true;  and 
yet  we  cannot  see  that  they  involve  us  in  the  obligation 
of  submitting  ourselves  to  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff. 

Granting  that  this  disunion  is  a  serious  evil,  there 
are  several  questions  which  naturally  arise,  and  which 
must  be  answered  to  our  satisfaction,  before  we  can  see 
our  own  duty  in  reference  to  it ;  such  questions  as 
these  :  Who  is  to  blame  for  the  Church's  broken  unity  ? 
What  is  the  Divine  intention  in  permitting  it  ?  By 
what  means  may  we  hope  to  restore  this  unity  according 
to  the  will  of  God  ?  And  what  is  our  duty  with  reference 
to  that  work  and  the  means  which  may  be  used  in  order 
to  attain  it  ? 

It  may  be  safely  said  that  most  of  those  who  profess 
to  be  influenced  by  this  argument  from  the  unity  of  the 
Christian  Church,  have  never  seriously  grappled  with  any 
one  of  these  questions.  They  know  that  the  English 
Church  is  a  part^  and  a  comparatively  small  part,  of  the 

B 


■ 


i8  ARGUMENT  FROM 

whole  of  Western  Christendom.  They  are  awed  by  the 
greatness,  the  past  history,  and  the  lofty  pretensions  of  the 
Latin  Church  ;  and  they  escape  from  a  position  which 
seems  to  be  isolated  and  therefore,  perhaps,  schismatical, 
to  take  one  which  impresses  the  imagination  with  an 
idea  of  unity,  comprehension,  Catholicity. 

But  they  do  not  consider  other  facts  which  are  at 
least  elements  in  any  true  solution  of  these  questions. 
They  do  not  consider,  for  example,  the  position  of  the 
Oriental  Churches  before  and  after  the  breach  of  com- 
munion between  them  and  the  Western  Church ;  they 
do  not  consider — a  more  important  matter — who  was 
responsible  for  the  events  which  led  to  the  schism  ; 
they  do  not  consider  who  was  the  actual  author  of  the 
schism  between  ourselves  and  the  Church  of  Rome, 
or  what  were  the  grounds  on  which  communion  was 
refused  by  the  one  to  the  other.  And  yet  every 
reasonable  human  being  will  admit  that  mere  genera- 
lities about  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  of  no 
weight -or  importance  whatever,  unless  we  can  be  satisfied 
on  questions  like  these. 

The  breaking  up  of  the  Church  of  Christ  into  frag- 
ments is  a  simple  fact ;  and  it  is  a  fact  which  does  not 
concern  the  English  Church  alone.  To  pronounce  a 
hasty  judgment  on  this  "broken  unity"  of  the  Church 
is  to  be  guilty  of  a  common  fault  against  which  Bishop 
Butler  long  ago  uttered  one  of  his  wise  cautions — the 
fault  of  judging  of  a  whole  plan  from  a  knowledge  of 
some  of  its  parts,  W^e  may  be  quite  certain  that,  if  the 
great  Ruler  of  the  Church  and  the  world  thus  permitted 
that  family  which  He  gathered  together  from  the  various 
nations  of  the  earth  to  be  broken  and  divided,  He  had 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  19 

some  wise  and  merciful  reason  for  so  allowing  it.  He 
had  the  power  to  prevent  it,  if  He  would  ;  and  it  becomes 
us  to  consider  well  why  He  allowed  its  history  to  take 
the  course  which  it  has  actually  followed.  We  do  not 
mean,  for  a  moment,  that  such  considerations  prove  that 
disunion  is  not  an  evil,  or  that  we  are  absolved  from 
the  duty  and  requirement  to  ^'pray  for  the  peace  of 
Jerusalem,"  and  to  labour  for  the  reunion  of  the  parted 
fragments  of  Christendom.  But  in  doing  so,  we  have 
no  right  to  ignore  the  whole  facts,  or  any  portion  of  the 
facts  of  the  case.  To  speak  of  the  position  of  the  Church 
of  England  and  its  irelation  to  the  Roman  Communion 
in  utter  forgetfulness  of  the  existence  of  the  Oriental 
Churches — to  argue  from  the  assumption  that  the  breach 
of  other  Churches  with  the  Roman  See  is  a  thing  of 
yesterday,  a  mere  passing  act  of  insubordination  and 
rebellion^ — is  as  absurd  and  irrational  as  the  assumption 
on  which  it  is  based  is  false. 

The  truth  is,  that  most  of  these  arguments  as  addressed 
to  us  from  the  Roman  side,  and  as  entertained  by  thought- 
less persons  belonging  to  our  own  communion,  utterly 
ignore  the  one  point  of  importance  apart  from  which 
all  attempts  to  re-establish  unity  are  and  ought  to  be 
utterly  futile  and  unavailing.  The  real  question  must 
always  be  :  On  what  basis  are  we  required  to  establish 
this  unity  ?  On  what  conditions  can  it  be  secured  ? 
Unless  the  basis  be  sound,  unless  the  conditions  be 
permanently  valid,  then  the  whole  work  which  proceeds 
from  them  must  fail. 

Roman  Catholics  cannot  deny  the  truth  of  this.  They 
may  say  what  they  please  about  the  duty  of  finding  the 
Catholic  Church,  about  the  English  Church  not  being  a 


I 


20  ARG  UMENT  FROM 

portion  of  it,  and  the  like  ;  but  they  know  that,  unless 
the  Papal  claims  can  be  sustained,  such  an  argument  is 
of  no  value  whatever;  and,  in  fact,  they  always  proceed 
on  the  assumption  that  they  are  vaHd. 

Now,  this  is  the  point  on  which  we  desire  most 
earnestly  to  concentrate  the  attention  of  our  readers  ; 
because  we  wish  them  to  decide  this  question  according 
to  truth  and  to  the  real  merits  of  the  case,  and  not  on 
any  side  issue.  If  the  Papal  claims  are  false,  then  we 
have  no  right  to  restore,  or  to  endeavour  to  restore, 
Catholic  unity  on  the  basis  of  an  idea  which  cannot  be 
maintained.  If  these  claims  are  not  true  and  valid,  then 
the  Papal  authority  is  a  mere  human  tyranny,  and  not 
a  divinely  established  monarchy.  In  short,  the  Roman 
CathoHc  himself  must  allow  that,  in  this  case — and  this 
is  the  point  to  be  considered — the  Papal  See,  instead  of 
being  the  true  centre  of  unity,  is  the  cause  of  disunion 
and  confusion ;  and  any  temporary  adoption  of  terms 
of  peace  based  upon  such  an  error  could  only  lead  to 
greater  discord  and  confusion. 

There  is  a  consideration  upon  which  we  are  not  inclined 
to  lay  any  great  stress,  because  it  is  unnecessary,  which 
may,  however,  be  worthy  of  a  passing  notice.  Granting 
that  the  divisions  of  Christendom  are  full  of  danger  to 
the  best  interests  of  mankind,  is  it  the  duty  of  individual 
Christians  to  put  an  end  to  those  divisions,  apart  from 
the  action  of  the  particular  communion  in  which  Divine 
Providence  may  have  cast  their  lot  ?  Should  we  really 
be  helping  towards  universal  Christian  unity  by  destroy- 
ing national  Christian  unity  ?  Will  individual  secessions 
from  a  smaller  fragment  of  the  broken  Church  to  a  larger 
fragment  of  it,  really  promote  this  reunion  and  unity  to 


I 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  21 


any  considerable  extent?  Is  not  this  a  question  to  be 
entertained  and  considered  by  the  whole  of  the  separated 
communities,  or  their  representatives,  rather  than  by 
individuals  belonging  to  them? 

Let  us  seek  an  illustration  of  this  subject  from  the 
history  of  the  Old  Testament.  Some  resemblance  to  the 
divisions  of  Christendom  is  found  in  the  separation  of 
the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel.  Now,  whatever  may 
have  been  the  faults  of  Judah,  whatever  the  provocation 
received  by  Israel,  the  northern  tribes  were  clearly  wrong 
in  breaking  away  from  the  worship  of  the  covenant 
people,  and  from  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem.  Of  this 
there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever.  Yet  God  does  not 
seem  to  have  neglected  them,  or  treated  them  as  having 
no  interest  in  His  covenant;  nor  do  we  find  that  indi- 
vidual subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  were  exhorted 
tQ  seek  reconciliation  with  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  or  to 
submit  themselves  to  its  kings,  as  a  means  of  obtaining 
access  to  the  temple  of  the  Most  High,  and  the  Divine 
presence  which  was  there  vouchsafed. 

But  this  illustration  greatly  overstates  the  strength 
of  the  Roman  claims.  In  the  first  place,  there  was  no 
doubt  at  all  in  regard  to  the  duty  incumbent  upon  adult 
Israelites  of  going  up  to  worship  in  the  place  where  the 
temple  was ;  whereas  there  is  great  doubt  as  to  the 
necessity  of  communion  with  Rome  ;  this,  indeed,  is  the 
very  point  in  question.  In  the  case  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  sanctuary,  the  orders  in  the  Bible  are  precise;  in  this 
other  case,  we  have  no  order  at  all  which,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  can  be  thought  to  lay  upon  Christians  the 
obligation  of  being  in  communion  with  any  particular 
church  or  bishop. 


I 


22  ARGUMENT  FROM 

Let  us  go  a  little  deeper.  The  reason  for  the  com- 
mand to  worship  in  Jerusalem  was  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  visible  manifestation  of  the  Divine  Presence  was 
given  there  in  the  Shechinah  which  hung  over  the  mercy- 
seat  within  the  tabernacle  of  testimony  in  the  wilderness, 
and  in  the  most  holy  place  in  the  temple.  No  Roman 
Catholic  will  think  of  contending  that  any  Divine  Pre- 
sence, under  the  new  and  better  covenant  which  is  ours, 
is  confined  to  any  particular  locaHty,  or  is  dependent 
upon  the  officiating  of  any  particular  priest  or  bishop. 
At  Jerusalem,  at  Alexandria,  at  Antioch,  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  manifested  through  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments, 
and  our  Blessed  Lord  was  present  in  His  ordinance, 
when  there  was  as  little  thought  of  consulting  or  defer- 
ring to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  there  is  now  in  the  chapel 
at  Lambeth  or  in  the  cathedral  at  Canterbury. 

Let  not  our  readers  mistake  our  meaning  or  our  inten- 
tion in  these  remarks.  They  prove  nothing,  it  may  be 
said  ;  they  are  not  adduced  to  prove  anything.  They  are 
brought  forward  only  to  show  that  the  thing  which  we 
might  have  expected  to  happen  did  not  happen.  Arguing 
as  people  do  about  the  duty  of  joining  the  Roman 
Communion,  in  order  to  be  sure  that  we  belong  to  the 
Catholic  Church,  we  should  certainly  expect  that  the 
great  burden  of  the  prophetic  message  to  the  northern 
kingdom  would  be  the  duty  of  reconciliation  to  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  and  the  sin  of  remaining  separated 
from  it.  Yet  we  hear  of  nothing  of  the  kind.  And  this, 
be  it  observed,  in  a  case  in  which  there  was  no  doubt. 
Jerusalem  was  undoubtedly  the  place  in  which  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  ought  to  worship.  The  kingdom  of  the 
ten  tribes  was  undoubtedly  in  a  state  of  schism.     And 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  23 

yet  it  was  never  hinted  that  persons  belonging  to  those 
tribes  should  join  themselves  to  the  tribe  of  Judah. 

How  different  is  the  ease  with  our  modern  Roma- 
nisers  !  For  the  sake  of  preserving  and  restoring  a  unity 
which  may  not  be  according  to  the  mind  of  God,  they 
take  a  course  for  which  they  have  no  command,  with  a 
certainty  apparently  as  absolute  as  though  their  duty  had 
been  revealed  from  heaven.  They  act  in  a  manner  at 
variance  with  all  accredited  principles  of  action,  which 
require  that  we  should  abstain  from  acting  when  the 
duty  to  do  so  is  not  clear.  If  a  man  finds  himself,  by 
God's  providence,  in  a  certain  position,  and  it  is  suggested 
to  him  that  he  should  make  an  important  change,  draw- 
ing after  it  the  most  serious  consequences,  he  would 
reasonably  require  that  the  arguments  in  favour  of  such 
a  change  should  be  of  considerable  cogency.  What 
would  he  do  if  they  were  doubtful?  He  would  do 
nothing.  He  would  refuse  to  act  upon  the  doubt.  The 
very  reverse  of  this  is  done  by  those  who  listen  to  these 
vague  and  general  reasons  for  entering  the  Roman  Com- 
munion. They  are  induced  to  entertain  doubts  as  to 
their  present  position  ;  and  they  act  upon  the  doubt,  not 
upon  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  new  position  which 
they  are  required  to  assume. 

This  is  utterly  irrational  and  unlawful.  To  those  who 
bid  us  leave  what  they  call  our  position  of  Anglican  isola- 
tion, our  answer  must  be  this  :  Before  we  can  take  such 
a  step,  Romans  must  prove  to  our  satisfaction  that  Christ 
intended  the  centre  of  His  kingdom  on  earth  to  be  found 
in  the  Holy  See,  and  in  that  see  invested  with  the  privi- 
leges and  powers  to  which  it  now  lays  claim. 

If  they  can   prove  this,   then  the  argument  for  the 


24  A RGUMENT  FROM 

Roman  Church  is  conclusive ;  and  we  have  no  business 
to  resist  her  claims  for  an  hour.  If  they  cannot,  then  we 
must  hold  not  only  that  the  Roman  See  has  'no  claim 
upon  our  allegiance,  but  that  it  is  actually  responsible 
for  the  divisions  which  it  professes  to  remedy.  The 
more  deeply  we  consider  the  subject,  the  more  clearly 
we  shall  see  that  the  whole  question  really  turns  upon 
the  Papal  supremacy;  and  all  fair  and  enlightened 
Roman  controversialists  will  allow  that  this  is  the  case. 
It  is  a  great  matter  to  see  clearly  the  point  at  issue. 
The  thing  of  next  importance  is  to  know  accurately  the 
arguments  by  which  the  point  is  sought  to  be  established. 
As  time  passes,  the  forms  of  these  controversies  are  apt 
to  change.  We  believe  we  shall  be  stating  the  Roman 
position  accurately  if  we  say  that  they  support  the  77iagiS' 
terium  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  chiefly  on  these  grounds  : — 

1.  On  the  ground  of  common  sense,  or  the  necessity 
of  the  case.  The  Church  was  promised  a  teacher  such 
as  the  Pope  professes  to  be,  and  no  one  but  the  Pope 
professes  to  fulfil  that  promise.  This  we  call  the  i  priori 
argument. 

2.  On  the  ground  of  actual  possession.  The  Pope  of 
Rome  exercises,  and  has  long  exercised,  the  supreme 
oflice  of  teaching  and  ruling  in  the  Christian  Church. 
How  did  such  a  power  come  into  his  possession  ?  If 
it  be  a  usurpation,  how  was  he  allowed  to  usurp  it? 
This  power,  they  allege,  has  varied  in  its  mode  of 
exercise,  but  has  always  existed.  This  we  call  the  argu- 
ment from  possession. 

3.  It  is  alleged  that  this  power  was  given  by  our  Lord 
to  St.  Peter,  and  was  by  him  transmitted  to  his  suc- 
cessors in  the  See  of  Rome,  who  have  exercised  it  from 


I 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  25 


the  beginning ;  and  that  there  is  evidence  of  these  state- 
ments in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  history  of  the 
Church.  This  we  call  the  argument  from  Scripture  and 
from  history. 

These  evidences  we  will  do  our  best  to  examine  in  all 
fairness  and  candour.  The  first  two  will  occupy  but  a 
small  space  in  our  discussion  of  the  subject.  They  are 
of  a  comparatively  intangible  character  until  they  are 
brought  face  to  face  with  Scripture  and  history ;  and  it 
will  be  w^ell  for  both  sides  in  this  controversy  if  they  can 
see  and  acknowledge  that  these  are  the  grounds  on  which 
alone  the  subject  can  be  satisfactorily  discussed.  If  we 
devote  some  portion  of  our  space  to  these  preliminary 
considerations,  it  is  because  we  have  no  right  to  ignore 
arguments  which  the  other  side  regard  as  of  importance 
in  the  settlement  of  this  controversy.  If  we  do  not 
dwell  upon  them  at  great  length,  it  is  because  their  chief 
value  consists  in  bringing  us  face  to  face  with  the  ques- 
tion as  it  presents  itself  in  history,  and  because  it  is  in 
the  field  of  history  that  it  must  be  settled. 


(      26     ) 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  'A  PRIORP  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  PAPAL 
CLAIMS, 

The  Roman  boast  of  unchangeableness — Virtually  abandoned — The 
argument  from  history  disparaged — The  argument  ' '  from  common 
sense,"  or  a  priori — Partly  true,  partly  false — To  be  used  with 
caution  and  impartiality — The  argument  stated — The  need  of  cer- 
tainty— The  Roman  Church  alone  professes  to  give  it — Criticism  of 
the  argument — (i.)  The  craving  for  certainty  not  really  satisfied. 
(2. )  Not  universally  professed.  (3. )  Is  it  better  that  all  our  questions 
should  be  conclusively  settled  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  many  import- 
ant questions  remained  long  unsettled.  (4.)  The  Papal  profession 
to  answer  such  questions  no  proof  of  ability  to  do  so— The  real 
question  again  :  What  proof  can  we  obtain  of  the  Papal  preten- 
sions? 

It  was,  in  former  days,  the  boast  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
that  her  doctrine  was  unchanged  and  unchangeable. 
Amid  all  the  alterations  to  which  other  communions  may 
be  liable,  she  is  always  the  same.  Over  her  whole 
system  she  professed  to  write  the  Vincentian  Canon  : 
"  That  which  was  always,  everywhere,  and  by  all  men 
believed.*'  Hence  her  constant  appeal  was  made  to  the 
history  of  the  past  and  to  the  traditions  of  the  Church. 
A  doctrine  was  condemned  because  it  was  new;  another 
was  true  or  probable  because  it  was  old. 

It  can  hardly  be  denied  that,  in  this  respect,  a  change 


THE  'A  PRIORP  ARGUMENT.  27 

has  come  over  the  spirit  of  the  Roman  Church  and  her 
mode  of  controversy.  Whether  it  be  that  the  recent 
additions  to  her  dogmatic  system  have  made  her  dis- 
satisfied with  the  partial  support  for  them  which  alone 
can  be  derived  from  the  testimonies  of  earlier  times ;  or 
whether  it  be  that  a  more  careful  examination  of  ancient 
documents  has  enabled  her  adversaries  to  turn  the 
argument  from  tradition  against  herself;  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  Roman  controversialists  have  become 
less  inclined  to  make  use  of  the  argument  from  history. 
To  quote  fathers  or  schoolmen  against  the  present 
Roman  system,  is  to  set  up  a  dead  past  against  the 
living  Divine  power  of  the  Church.  We  are  incapable 
of  understanding  the  testimony  of  history,  we  are  told, 
without  the  guidance  of  the  Church.  These  voices 
which  speak  to  us  from  the  past  are  jarring  and  dis- 
cordant, until  they  are  harmonized  by  the  infallible 
utterances  of  a  power  which  presides  over  them  and 
separates  truth  from  error.  It  is  obvious  to  remark  that 
the  introduction  of  such  a  principle  utterly  neutralizes 
the  value  of  the  argument  from  history  ;  it  is  an  assump- 
tion of  the  truth  of  the  question  under  consideration; 
it  is  a  rejection  beforehand  of  all  that  might  be  urged 
as  a  reason  for  deciding  otherwise  than  the  authority 
whose  conclusions  we  are  hesitating  to  accept. 

This  jealousy  of  history  has  led  to  the  adoption  of 
other  modes  of  argument,  which  are  supposed  to  be 
better  adapted  to  the  ordinary  intelligence ;  and  these 
arguments  are  recommended  by  considerations  of  some 
plausibility.  Most  persons,  we  are  told  with  perfect 
truth,  are  incapable  of  prosecuting  a  protracted  historical 
inquiry ;  they  cannot  be  sure  that  they  have  got  a  suffi- 


28  THE  'A  PRIORI'  ARGUMENT 

cient  collection  of  the  facts ;  and  even  if  their  induction 
is  tolerably  complete,  their  inferences  are  perhaps  as 
likely  to  be  right  as  to  be  wrong. 

If  there  is  force  in  this  objection  to  the  testimony 
of  history,  which  we  are  far  from  denying,  one  should 
suppose  that  it  would  be  the  duty  of  those  who  are 
incapable  of  thus  conducting  the  inquiry  to  abstain 
from  the  controversy  altogether,  and  to  be  satisfied  to 
do  their  duty  in  the  position  to  which  God's  providence 
had  assigned  them.  But  this  is  not  the  conclusion  of  the 
Roman  controversialist.  No,  he  says,  your  position  is 
one  of  danger;  and  you  must  abandon  it.  And,  although 
you  are  incapable  of  investigating  the  argument  from  his- 
tory, there  is  an  argument  which  you  can  understand — 
the  argument  of  common  sense.  You  may  fairly  judge 
of  what  is  from  considering  7e.>hat  must  be.  You  know 
what  God  has  intended  His  Church  to  be,  you  know 
what  He  has  promised  to  His  Church;  and  you  can 
judge  whether  that  which  He  has  promised  is  found  in 
your  own  so-called  Reformed  Church  or  in  the  holy 
Roman  Catholic  Church. 

As  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  there  are  few  arguments 
more  dangerous  than  this  one.  We  are  not  capable  of 
judging  of  what  God  might  possibly  do,  except  by  study- 
ing what  He  has  done.  To  set  up  a  certain  theory  of 
our  own  as  that  which  must  necessarily  be  the  true  one, 
and  then  to  seek  about  for  the  system  which  most  nearly 
corresponds  with  our  preconceived  theory,  is  to  expose 
ourselves  to  the  danger  of  falling  into  any  heresy  which 
may  seem  to  meet  our  requirements.  Such  a  mode  of 
thinking  has  actually  produced  multitudes  of  heresies  and 
schisms. 


FOR  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS,  29 

While,  therefore,  we  do  not  entirely  reject  this  form  of 
argument — while  we  allow  that  all  reasoning  must  proceed 
upon  certain  fundamental  axioms  universally  accepted — 
while  we  fully  admit  that  there  are  certain  broad  prin- 
ciples laid  down  in  Holy  Scripture  by  which  every  existing 
religious  system  may  properly  be  tested,  it  is  equally 
obvious  that  this  species  of  argument  must  be  employed 
with  the  greatest  caution.  We  must,  in  fact,  make  no 
use  of  it  which  we  are  not  willing  that  others  should 
make;  and,  if  we  are  not  careful  in  this  respect,  we  may 
be  laying  foundations  which  will  equally  bear  super- 
structions  differing  most  widely  from  those  which  we 
are  desirous  of  erecting. 

Let  us  then  endeavour  in  this  spirit,  at  once  of  can- 
dour and  watchfulness,  to  examine  the  argument  for  the 
supreme  teaching  authority  of  the  Pope,  which  is  supposed 
to  be  derived  from  the  necessity  of  the  case. 

It  may  be  stated  in  the  following  manner  : — Man  has 
need  of  truth  in  order  to  rightness  of  life  here  and  the 
prospect  of  happiness  hereafter.  It  is  the  truth  which 
makes  us  free,  while  error  enslaves.  It  is  truth  which 
sanctifies,  while  error  degrades  and  defiles.  This  is  the 
first  principle. 

The  second  is  equally  undeniable  :  Jesus  Christ  came 
into  the  world  as  a  witness  for  the  truth.  He  was  Him- 
self the  Truth  which  makes  men  free,  because  it  brings 
them  into  the  family  of  God,  and  makes  them  children 
instead  of  slaves.  He  was  the  Truth  which  sanctifies  and 
saves,  for  to  know  Him  and  the  Father  by  whom  He 
was  sent  is  everlasting  life. 

Now,  it  is  further  urged,  this  Divine  truth  is  as  much 
a  necessity  of  our  own  times  as  of  the  days  in  which  the 


so  THE  'A  PRIORV  ARGUMENT 

Son  of  God  appeared  on  earth.  Whatever  was  necessary- 
then,  is  necessary  now.  Men  have  the  same  needs, 
intellectual,  moral,  spiritual;  and  these  can  be  satisfied 
now  only  in  the  same  manner  in  which  they  were  satis- 
fied then. 

But,  further,  Jesus  Christ  actually  promised  to  continue 
to  the  Church  the  same  kind  of  guidance  which  He 
provided  for  His  disciples  during  His  earthly  ministry. 
*' As  My  Father  sent  Me,'^  He  said  to  His  apostles,  '^so 
send  I  you  ; "  "  He  that  receiveth  you,  receiveth  Me ;  " 
"  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  Me."  And  lest  these 
indications  and  promises  should  lack  precision  and 
definiteness,  He  told  them  of  a  Divine  Presence  which 
should  be  accorded  to  them  in  order  to  preserve  them 
from  error  and  forgetfulness,  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Para- 
clete, the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  should  bring  all  things  to 
their  remembrance  that  He  had  said  to  them,  and  who 
should  guide  them  into  all  truth. 

Once  more,  this  Divine  Teacher  was  promised  to 
remain  with  them  for  ever.  He  was  not  to  come  for 
a  season,  and  to  go  away  as  the  Incarnate  Son  had 
done.  It  was  better,  He  told  them,  that  they  should  have 
this  invisible  Teacher  in  the  place  of  the  visible  One ; 
but  He  was  not  to  depart.  **I  will  pray  the  Father, 
and  He  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  He 
may  abide  with  you  for  ever,"  As  long  as  human  needs 
endure,  there  will  be  this  supply ;  as  long  as  men  have 
questions  to  ask,  there  will  be  this  means  of  answering 
them. 

So  far,  it  must  be  admitted,  these  are  points  on  which 
all  Christians  are  agreed.  Not  only  are  they  laid  down  in 
the  plainest  words  by  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel  narrative, 


FOR  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS,  31 

but  they  lie  at  the  basis  of  all  Christian  belief  and 
doctrine. 

Now,  then,  asks  the  Roman  advocate  triumphantly, 
Where  do  you  find  this  religious  guidance  at  the  present 
day  ?  What  Church  professes  to  give  you  this  certainty 
of  teaching,  this  perfect  assurance  of  Divine  truth  for 
which  your  heart  is  longing  ?  Where  shall  we  find  it — 
at  Canterbury,  at  St.  Petersburg,  at  Constantinople,  or 
at  Rome  ? 

Two  things,  we  are  told,  are  quite  certain  :  first,  that 
Jesus  Christ  must  have  given  to  the  Church  what  He 
promised  it ;  and  that  this  authoritative  teaching,  wher- 
ever it  may  be,  cannot  be  with  any  communion  or  body 
which  does  not  profess  to  have  it,  and  must  be  with 
some  communion  which  is  conscious  of  possessing  it  and 
actually  claims  to  exercise  it. 

Now,  it  is  continued,  there  is  only  one  body  on  earth 
which  ever  lays  claim  to  infallibility  in  its  teaching,  and 
that  is  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  whose  centre  is  the 
throne  of  Peter,  and  whose  mouthpiece  is  the  Vicar  of 
Christ.  If  this  be  not  the  authoritative  infallible  teacher, 
where  is  he  to  be  found  ?  The  English  Church  lays  no 
claim  to  such  power ;  the  Eastern  Church  calls  itself 
orthodox,  but  does  not  venture  to  assume  the  title  of 
Catholic,  nor  does  it  pretend  to  teach  with  infallible 
truth.  Are  we  not  then  driven,  perforce,  to  the  See  of 
Rome  for  the  instruction  which  we  need  and  which  our 
Lord  promised  to  His  people? 

We  have  stated  this  argument  fully  and  fairly,  as  it  is 
given  by  the  most  able  Roman  controversialists  of  the 
present  day.  We  are  sure  that  they  will  accept  these 
statements    as    accurately   representing   their    position. 


32  THE  'A  PRIORI'  ARGUMENT 

We  must  add  that  we  can  quite  appreciate  the  force  of 
this  appeal  when  directed  to  a  certain  class  of  minds. 
It  is  simple  and  intelligible ;  it  is  even  plausible.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  has  swayed  many  more  than  any  care- 
ful and  minute  examination  of  authorities.  Not  merely 
unlearned  persons,  but  men  of  mark  and  influence  might 
be  named  who  have  yielded  to  the  power  of  such  con- 
siderations. If  we  refuse  to  acknowledge  their  force, 
we  must  be  prepared  to  give  our  reasons ;  and  this  we 
will  endeavour  to  do. 

I.  Let  us  then  remark,  first,  that  the  whole  power  of 
this  appeal  is  derived  from  its  professing  to  meet  our 
craving  for  certainty.  Probabilities,  we  are  told,  are 
insufficient ;  we  must  have  absolute  certainty.  We  must 
have  the  truth  presented  to  us  with  such  clearness  and 
force  that  we  shall  feel  we  have  no  right  to  resist  it  for 
a  moment. 

-  Now,  although  we  have  acknowledged  the  plausibility 
and  recognised  the  actual  power  of  such  an  appeal,  we 
must  equally  assert  that  the  answer  to  it  is  not  far  to 
seek.  And  the  answer  is  contained  in  the  very  simple 
principle,  that  in  this  world  and  in  our  present  condition, 
moral  evidence  and  moral  certainty  are  all  that  we  can 
hope  to  attain  to.  It  is  not  only  Bishop  Butler  who  has 
told  us  that,  to  us  at  least,  probability  is  the  very  guide  of 
life ;  the  same  principle  has  been  abundantly  recognised 
by  Roman  theologians  and  casuists.  Any  teacher,  there- 
fore, who  professes  to  give  us  miore  than  this,  lays  himself 
open  to  the  suspicion  of  promising  more  than  God  has 
intended  us  to  possess. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  question  still  arises,  even 
supposing  that  the  Pope  has  this  power  of  giving  ab- 


FOR  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS.  3;^ 

solute  certainty  on  religious  truth,  and  that  his  utterances 
are  infallibly  true,  does  this  actually  give  certainty  to  the 
individual  learner?  Supposing  for  a  moment  that  the 
Pope  is  infallible,  at  least  I  cannot  be  infaUibly  certain 
that  he  is  so.  Before  I  accept  that  proposition,  true 
or  false, I  must  examine  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests; 
I  must  satisfy  myself  that  the  arguments  by  which  it  is 
supported  are  valid.  If  I  am  not  to  do  this,  books  of 
controversy  are  utterly  worthless,  and  those  learned 
Roman  divines  who  write  them  are  simply  wasting  their 
time.  But  my  examination  of  these  arguments  can  bring 
me  no  more  than  moral  certainty,  can  never  make  me 
infallibly  sure,  unless  I  am  infallible  myself.  We  repeat 
therefore,  as  regards  certainty,  the  introduction  of  the 
infaUibility  of  the  Pope  does  not  get  rid  of  the  difficulty ; 
it  only  pushes  it  a  little  further  back.  As  far  as  we  are 
concerned,  no  absolute  certainty  is  possible. 

2.  Another  consideration  may  be  urged  :  Even  if  the 
Pope  professes  to  settle  a  great  many  questions  which 
other  Churches  leave  open,  and  confess  that  they  are 
unable  to  decide,  he  does  not  settle  every  question ;  nay, 
questions  of  the  deepest  interest  in  connection  with  his 
own  claims  are  frequently  raised  and  debated,  without 
either  side  being  able  to  quote  infallible  authority  as 
having  pronounced  in  favour  of  their  views.  This  cer- 
tainty, then,  which  the  Roman  Church  promises  us,  is  a 
mere  matter  of  degree.  Apart  entirely  from  the  question 
—quite  a  legitimate  one — whether  the  multiplication  of 
dogmas  is  an  advantage  or  a  disadvantage,  whether  it 
be  better  or  worse  that  men  should  leave  a  number  of 
these  questions  open,  it  must  be  clear  that  a  large 
number  of  very  important   questions    do    still   remain 

I 


34  THE  'A  PRIORI'  ARGUMENT 

open,  and  that  no  answer  which  professes  to  be  con- 
clusive can  be  obtained  to  many  inquiries  which  are 
felt  to  be  by  no  means  insignificant. 

Thus,  twenty  years  ago  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate 
conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  was  still  un- 
decided, and  it  might  be  denied  without  encountering 
the  charge  of  heresy.  Of  course,  the  advocate  of  the 
Roman  position  will  assert  that  the  dogma  was  pro- 
mulgated at  the  right  moment — neither  too  soon  nor  too 
late ;  but  here,  again,  we  have  to  assume  the  perfect 
wisdom,  as  well  as  the  infallibility,  of  the  Roman  See. 

About  ten  years  ago  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility  had 
not  been  promulgated,  and  before  the  Vatican  Council  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  Rome  might  deny  it  or  affirm 
it ;  but  he  could  get  no  answer  to  his  inquiry,  however 
anxious  he  might  be  for  certainty  on  the  subject. 

But  we  must  go  further ;  this  very  question  of  Papal 
infallibility  is  still  in  a  state  of  great  uncertainty.  It  is 
indeed  required  that  faithful  Catholics  shall  confess  that 
the  utterances  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  when  speaking  ex 
cathedra  and  addressing  the  whole  Church,  are  irre- 
formable  and  certainly  true;  but  it  has  not  yet  been 
explained  what  is  the  exact  force  of  the  expression  ex 
cathedra.  It  has  been  asserted,  and  not  denied,  that  it 
is  lawful  to  believe  that  the  Pope  does  not  speak  ex 
cathedra  unless  when  he  is  promulgating  the  decrees  of 
an  oecumenical  council.  It  is  a  matter  of  controversy, 
at  the  present  moment,  whether  the  Syllabus  of  Pope 
Pius  IX.  was  an  utterance  ex  cathedra  or  not,  whether 
all  its  statements  are  binding  upon  "Catholics  as  a  part  of 
Divine  revelation,  or  whether  they  are  only  the  private 
opinions  of  a  Catholic  doctor. 


■    FOR  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS.  35 

These  are  strange  illustrations  of  the  certainty  which 
the  Roman  Church  promises  to  afford,  and  which  it  pro- 
fesses to  convey  to  the  minds  of  its  members.  And, 
indeed,  the  difficulties  which  we  are  suggesting  are  by 
no  means  imaginary.  There  would  seem  to  be  almost 
insuperable  obstacles  to  the  acceptance  of  either  view 
of  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  Suppose  we  take  the 
view,  that  an  oecumenical  council  is  necessary  before  the 
Pope  can  promulgate  ex  cathedra  a  new  theological  dogma, 
what  then  becomes  of  the  dogma  of  the  immaculate  con- 
ception ?  This  was  sent  forth  to  the  Church  without 
any  council  being  assembled,  and  yet  the  doctrine  is 
now  regarded  as  part  of  the  Catholic  faith,  and  the 
denial  of  it  would  expose  one  to  the  charge  of  heresy. 

On  the  other  hand,  let  us  suppose  that  the  solemn 
utterances  of  the  Pope,  speaking  as  the  Vicar  of  Christ, 
and  addressing  himself  to  the  whole  Christian  body, 
are  to  be  received  as  the  utterances  of  God,  then  the 
Syllabus  must  certainly  be  regarded  as  infallible ;  for  it 
is  hardly  possible  to  imagine  anything  put  forth  with 
greater  solemnity.  It  would  appear,  then,  that  a  Roman 
Catholic,  so  far  from  having  attained  to  absolute  certainty 
on  these  subjects,  is  involved  in  a  difficulty  out  of  which 
one  can  hardly  see  a  way  of  escape.  If  he  accepts,  as  he 
is  apparently  bound  to  do,  the  dogma  of  the  immaculate 
conception  as  a  part  of  the  CathoUc  faith,  one  can  hardly 
see  how  he  can  refuse  to  give  the  same  character  to  the 
contents  of  the  Syllabus.  If,  on  the  contrary,  he  takes 
the  view,  which  we  are  told  is  lawful  for  a  Catholic, 
that  the  Syllabus  is  not  to  be  considered  as  proceeding 
from  the  Pope  ex  cathedra^  then  it  would  appear  that,  on 
the  same  principle,  the  immaculate  conception   of  the 


■ 


36  THE  'A  PRIORI'  ARGUMENT 

Blessed  Virgin  may  still  be  regarded  as  an  open  question. 
But,  in  this  case,  what  becomes  of  the  boasted  certainty 
of  Roman  teaching  ?  These  are  not  matters  of  slight 
importance,  but  are  closely  connected  with  the  very 
foundations  of  the  faith,  and  yet  we  have  no  certain 
guidance  with  reference  to  them. 

3.  No  one  will,  of  course,  think  of  denying  that,  on 
a  good  many  questions,  those  who  can  unhesitatingly 
accept  the  guidance  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  will  have  a 
degree  of  satisfaction  to  which  none  besides  can  attain. 
But  a  question  of  some  importance  may  reasonably  be 
asked  in  connection  with  this  point.  Is  it  better  for  us 
that  many  of  our  doubts  and  difficulties  should  thus  be 
settled — that  we  should  at  once  be  set  free  from  the 
necessity  of  further  discussing  them?  Is  it,  in  short, 
according  to  the  will  of  God  that  these  questions,  some 
of  them  doubtless  very  perplexing,  should  be  set  at  rest 
in  this  fashion  ?  If  we  accepted  the  Roman  view  of 
our  Lord's  promise,  we  should  probably  say  that  it  was 
most  natural  and  reasonable  to  expect  that  Christians 
should  not  be  left  to  torture  themselves  with  doubts  on 
questions  like  these.  He  who  can  so  easily  put  an 
end  to  all  our  doubts  ;  He  who  has  given  His  own  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  with  His  Church  for  ever,  for  the  very  purpose 
of  guiding  it  into  all  truth,  might,  on  this  theory,  be 
expected,  when  any  heresy  arose,  or  any  doubtful 
question  was  asked,  to  interpose  with  His  infallible 
decision  and  put  an  end  to  the  controversy. 

Might  we  not  go  further  and  say  that,  if  such  conflicts 
were  evil.  He  might  have  prevented  heresies  or  even 
doubts  from  arising?  It  is  needless  further  to  speculate 
on  what  He  might  have  done,  when  we  know  what  He 


FOR  THE  PAPAL  CLAIMS.  ^ 

actually  has  done,  and  has  not  done,  in  the  past  history 
of  the  Church.  Controversies  have  arisen  in  the  Church 
affecting  the  most  fundamental  articles  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  yet  no  voice  from  heaven  has  been  heard 
declaring,  "  This  is  truth,  that  is  error."  The  advocates 
of  doctrines  which  are  now  regarded  by  Roman  and 
Anglican,  by  Catholic  and  Protestant  alike,  as  of  the 
very  essence  of  the  faith,  have  been  persecuted  and 
driven  from  land  to  land,  and  no  voice  claiming  iner- 
rancy, professing  to  speak  as  the  representative  of  the 
infaUible  Head  of  the  Church,  has  attempted  to  gain  a 
hearing,  in  order  to  deliver  the  faithful  and  smite  the 
enemies  of  the  truth.  All  the  great  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  faith  have  been  formulated  after 
long  and  painful  controversies  and  conflicts  which  the 
Church  in  some  cases  would  willingly  forget.  The  need 
for  such  interposition  as  the  Roman  Pontiff  now  offers  can 
never  be  so  sore  as  it  was  in  the  fourth  century ;  yet  it 
was  not  by  such  means,  by  such  a  short  and  easy  method, 
that  it  pleased  God  to  terminate  those  disputes. 

Let  this,  then,  be  clearly  noted.  If  a  requirement 
such  as  we  mentioned  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter, 
and  to  which  the  Roman  Church  now  professes  to  re- 
spond, had  been  put  forth  in  the  first  days  of  the  faith, 
there  would  have  been  no  response  to  it.  There  was,  at 
the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  no  bishop  or  Church 
which  professed  to  be  the  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for 
the  settlement  of  all  controversies  and  the  removal  of 
all  doubts.  But  the  requirement  would  have  been  as 
reasonable  then  as  it  is  now.  If  we  have  a  right  thus  to 
understand  our  Lord's  promise,  surely  they  had  an  equal 
right ;  if  we  may  demand  that  it  shall  be  fulfilled  by  the 


38  THE  'A  PRIORV  ARGUMENT. 

utterances  of  an  infallible  voice,  they  had  a  right  to  de- 
mand the  same.  This  consideration  would  seem  to  be  con- 
clusive. An  ciprio7'i  argument  which  is  valid  only  at  some 
particular  portion  of  the  history  of  the  Church  has  for- 
feited its  claim  to  that  character.  Whatever  the  claims 
of  the  Roman  Church  may  be,  this  is  no  basis  for  them. 

4.  But  let  us  further  remark^  even  if  such  expectations 
were  more  reasonable  than  we  take  them  to  be,  the  ques- 
tion would  still  arise  :  Has  the  Bishop  of  Rome  the  right 
and  the  power  to  settle  these  controversies  .^  It  is  true,  he 
is  the  only  bishop  who  professes  to  have  the  authority  to 
do  so.  But  is  that  sufficient?  What  if  he  should  prove 
an  impostor?  And  we  must  remember  that  one  who 
bears  witness  of  himself  is  not  necessarily  true.  Of  what 
avail  is  it  for  us  that  we  should  have  our  questions 
answered,  and  our  doubts  resolved,  if  it  should  turn  out 
that  he  who  gives  the  answers  has  no  authority  to  do  so  ? 
Our  expectation  that  our  anxieties  will  be  set  to  rest, 
the  profession  of  another  that  he  is  able  to  grant  us  this 
relief,  our  readiness  to  believe  his  profession  and  to 
submit  to  his  decision, — all  this  is  worth  nothing  and  less 
than'nothing.  The  solemn"responsibility  is  still  laid  upon 
the  claimant  to  infallibility  to  give  evidences  of  the 
validity  of  his  claim,  upon  the  inquirer  to  examine  the 
evidences  which  he  professes  to  supply. 

Every  thorough  investigation  of  any  aspect  of  this 
subject  brings  us  back  to  the  question  :  Has  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  by  Divine  right,  power  and  authority  supremely 
to  teach  and  to  govern  the  whole  of  Christ's  Church 
militant  here  on  earth  ?  And  until  this  question  receives 
a  satisfactory  answer,  all  arguments  of  a  merely  abstract 
character  are  comparatively  valueless. 


(    39    ) 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION, 

The  existence  of  the  Roman  primacy — Its  claims  widely  acknowledged 
■ — How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for? — Compared  with  the  argument 
for  the  Episcopate— This  great  difference  :  the  claims  of  the  Epis- 
copate always  substantially  the  same,  while  the  Papal  claims  are 
enlarged  from  age  to  age— The  appeal  on  this  point  must  be  made  to 
history — Certain  facts  admitted — Diverse  interpretations  of  the  facts 
— History  must  settle  the  question. 

We  have  seen  how  every  argument  for  submission  to 
the  Church  of  Rome  leads  us  to  consider  the  support 
which  its  claims  may  receive  from  Scripture  and  from 
history.  However  much  any  one  may  like  the  Roman 
system,  or  dislike  any  other,  if  he  is  a  reasonable  man, 
he  must  come  back  to  this  question  :  But  are  the  Roman 
claims  valid  ?  Are  they  a  Divine  endowment  or  a 
human  invention?  However  desirable  it  may  seem  to 
us  that  there  should  be  an  unerring  teacher  on  earth, 
who  can  set  all  our  doubts  at  rest,  we  must  still  satisfy 
ourselves  that  there  is  such  a  teacher,  and  that  he 
derives  his  power  and  authority  from  God.  Those 
other  arguments,  if  indeed  they  have  any  claim  to  that 
designation,  can  at  the  very  utmost  only  create  a  pre- 
sumption in  favour  of  the  Papal  theory,  or  rather  perhaps 
induce  us  to  give  a  hearing  to  the  arguments  by  which 


40       THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION. 

its  claims  are  enforced.  Those  who  feel  the  force  of 
them — for  to  some  they  will  have  no  force — will  recog- 
nize the  obligation  to  examine  the  subject  with  care  and 
candour,  perhaps  with  sympathy.  But  that  is  all.  They 
cannot  settle  the  question,  or  make  any  approach  to 
settling  it.  However  great  our  supposed  need  for  that 
which  the  Papal  supremacy  offers  to  supply,  however 
strong  our  inclinations  in  favour  of  the  system  over 
which  it  presides,  we  are  still  bound,  as  reasonable 
creatures,  to  ask,  **  Where  are  the  credentials  by  which 
its  claims  are  made  good  ?  " 

There  is  one  other  consideration,  of  a  preliminary 
character,  which  is  often  urged  by  the  advocates  of  the 
Papal  claims,  which  will  bring  us  face  to  face  with  that 
which  we  have  stated  to  be  the  real  question  at  issue 
between  Roman  and  Reformed  :  it  is  what  we  have  called 
the  argument  from  possession ;  and  it  has  a  certain 
striking  and  impressive  character  which  is  certainly,  in  a 
way,  effective,  if  it  cannot  be  thought  convincing. 

It  may  be  stated  in  the  following  manner : — The 
Roman  primacy  exists,  its  claims  are  not  only  put  forth, 
but  actually  recognized  by  a  very  large  proportion  of 
Christendom.  How  did  these  claims  come  into  exist- 
ence? How  is  it  that  they  have  been  so  widely  and  so 
completely  recognized  and  deferred  to  ?  Here  is  a 
fact  which  must  be  accounted  for.  Go  back  through 
the  past  centuries  of  Christian  history,  and  you  are  con- 
fronted by  it  in  every  age.  You  cannot  show  the 
moment  when  it  began  to  be.  Must  it  not,  therefore, 
be  coeval  with  the  Christian  Church  ?  Must  it  not  be 
the  gift  of  the  Divine  Teacher,  for  the  guidance  and 
instruction  of  His  people? 


■ii 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION,      41 

The  appeal  is  intelligible  and  it  is  powerful.  We  have 
no  right  to  dismiss  it  without  serious  consideration  ;  and 
it  does  actually  raise  the  question  which,  as  we  have 
said,  is  the  real  question  at  issue. 

Before,  however,  we  attempt  to  respond  to  the  appeal, 
we  must  endeavour  thoroughly  to  understand  its  signifi- 
cance and  force.  It  belongs  to  the  same  class  with  an 
argument  for  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Episcopate, 
with  which  it  will  be  useful  to  compare  it,  that  we  may 
honestly  ask  ourselves  whether  we  reject  evidence  in  one 
case  which  we  accept  in  another — whether  we  do  not, 
as  Roman  Catholics  allege  against  us,  use  their  arguments 
in  defence  of  our  own  system,  and  refuse  to  apply  them 
when  they  would  lead  us  on  to  the  adoption  of  theirs  ? 

This  argument  for  the  Episcopate  has  been  ably 
stated  by  Dean  Milman  in  his  "  History  of  Christianity,'* 
and  may  be  presented  in  the  following  form  : — By  about 
the  middle  or  the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century 
we  find  bishops  everywhere  throughout  the  Christian 
Church  recognized  as  the  first  of  three  orders  of 
the  ministry.  If  their  office  is  the  result  of  human 
usurpation,  how  is  it  that  this  usurpation  was  allowed 
without  resistance  or  opposition?  How  is  it  that  a 
change  so  momentous  took  place  throughout  the  whole 
Church,  without  leaving  the  slightest  trace  of  a  struggle  ? 
This  is  a  question  which  Presbyterians  find  it  almost 
impossible  to  answer.  But  in  that  case,  are  we  not  shut 
up  to  the  conclusion  that  the  episcopal  office  was  of 
apostolic  origin  ?  It  must  be  confessed  that  the  argu- 
ment is  a  very  powerful  one,  and  one  the  force  of  which 
it  is  most  difficult  to  evade. 

I  Now  the  Roman  argument  from  possession  is  of  the 


42       THE  ARGUMENT  EROM  POSSESSION, 

same  character;  and  the  real  question  to  be  determined 
is  this  :  Has  it  the  same  force  ?  If  it  has,  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  those  who  accept  its  validity  for  the 
Episcopate  are  bound  to  admit  its  cogency  in  behalf 
of  the  Papacy.  But  is  it  of  the  same  strength  for  the 
one  conclusion  as  for  the  other  ?  Let  us  consider. 

In  regard  to  the  episcopal  order^  it  is  a  simple  fact 
that,  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  we  have  no  records 
of  Christian  Churches  without  bishops  being  over  them. 
And  this  fact  is  not  dependent  upon  the  genuineness  of 
any  particular  document,  as,  for  instance,  the  Ignatian 
epistles ;  it  is  asserted  or  assumed  by  all  primitive 
Christian  history  and  testimony.  Not  only  so,  but  the 
position  and  office  of  a  bishop  in  those  earliest  days  are 
substantially  the  same  as  in  later  times.  The  earthly 
surroundings  are  very  different  from  age  to  age.  At  one 
time  dioceses  are  small  and  poor;  at  another  they 
are  large  and  wealthy.  At  one  time  the  office  brings 
opprobrium  and  persecution  ;  at  another  time  it  brings 
honour  and  dignity.  At  one  time  the  power  exercised 
by  the  bishop  is  enforced  by  the  law  of  the  State ;  at 
another  it  has  only  moral  and  spiritual  sanctions  to 
which  it  can  appeal.  But  the  real  meaning  and  signifi- 
cance of  the  office  are  the  same  from  the  beginning. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century,  a  bishop 
claims  no  more  than  he  did  towards  the  end  of  the 
second.  Circumstances  being  taken  into  account,  his 
powers  and  his  pretensions  are  identical  with  those  of 
his  most  remote  ancestors. 

Further,  when  we  trace  the  history  of  the  Episcopate 
from  age  to  age,  we  find  that  its  character  remains 
always  the  same.     Individual  bishops   may  be   lax   or 


I 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION,       43 


tyrannical,  and  the  result  may  be,  in  particular  cases, 
disorder  or  rebellion  ]  but  the  authority  of  the  office  is 
sufficiently  defined,  and  is  generally  understood  and 
acknowledged.  It  is  true  that,  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  several  Christian  Churches  abolished  the 
office,  or  rather,  perhaps,  continued  their  history  without 
bishops ;  but  it  can  hardly  be  asserted  that  this  course 
was  taken  from  any  deliberate  conviction  that  the  office 
itself  was  inconsistent  with  the  Divine  will  and  purpose. 
The  leading  Reformers  on  the  Continent  were  in  favour 
of  Episcopacy;  but  they  had  difficulties  in  getting 
bishops  to  espouse  their  cause.  It  may  be  said,  then, 
with  truth,  that  the  episcopal  office  has  existed 
consecutively  with  the  same  powers  and  privileges,  and 
almost  without  opposition  or  protest,  from  the  very 
earliest  days  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Can  the  same  thing  be  said  of  the  Papacy?  Virtually 
the  same  thing  is  asserted.  *^  If,"  askes  an  able  advo- 
cate of  the  Papal  claims,  "if  for  some  centuries  nc 
Bishop  of  Rome  claimed  the  powers  of  a  Pope,  how 
came  they  at  last  to  make  the  claim  ?  and,  what  is  more 
strange,  how  came  they  to  get  the  power  which  they 
claimed  and  hold  now?  And  to  this  question  which  I 
put  I  venture  to  give  this  answer,  that  if  for  some 
centuries,  or  even  for  some  weeks,  the  authority  of  the 
Pope  had  no  existence,  and  no  valid  title  to  exist,  it 
could  not  be  existing  now." 

He  then  asks  us  **to  call  to  mind  what  sort  of 
authority  the  Popes  claim  and  exercise.  Theirs  is  not 
merely  a  nominal  supremacy.  .  .  .  Their  sovereignty 
is  a  great  reality.  They  claim  and  assert  rights  which 
make  themselves  felt  in  every  grade  of  society  through- 


■ 


44       T^HE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION, 

out  the  Christian  world ;  and  so  far  from  their  being 
passive  or  sleeping  potentates,  there  is  no  other  govern- 
ment so  vigilant,  so  active,  so  searching,  so  intimately- 
felt  in  the  inmost  recesses  of  the  privacy  of  every 
Christian  home." 

Further,  he  asks  us  to  observe  *^that  the  men  who 
bow  down  before  "  this  authority,  "  are  not  the  feeble 
and  ignorant,"  but  ^'  the  strong  men  of  the  Christian 
Church ;  men  themselves  rulers  and  princes  ;  men  of 
all  different  nationalities  ;  and  men  who,  if  they  felt 
inclined  to  defy  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  would  often- 
times have  all  the  power  of  the  Crown  at  their  back." 

Undoubtedly,  as  we  have  said,  the  appeal  is  striking 
and  impressive  ;  but  it  cannot  prevent  our  interrogating 
history  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  this  power 
has  descended  to  the  Popes  by  Divine  gift,  or  whether 
it  is  a  human  usurpation.  According  to  the  Roman 
view,  the  former  theory  alone  will  acount  for  the  facts. 
The  Oriental  schism  was  the  breaking  away  from  the 
centre  of  unity  which  up  to  that  time  had  been  acknow- 
ledged equally  in  the  East  and  the  West ;  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  sixteenth  century  was  a  rebellion  within  the 
Latin  Church  itself,  the  throwing  off  of  an  authority 
of  Divine  origination,  not  a  revolt  against  an  unlawful 
tyranny  and  a  return  to  earlier  and  purer  doctrines  and 
customs. 

Now  here  we  must  take  liberty  to  make  two  remarks 
on  plain  matters  of  history.  The  first  is,  that  the  Papal 
authority  was  by  no  means  acquiesced  in  throughout 
even  those  periods  of  time  which  are  generally  called 
the  ages  of  faith.  There  was,  perhaps,  no  Christian 
land  in  which  it  was  not  actually  resisted,  and  resisted 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION,       45 

on  principle.  There  was,  no  doubt,  a  remarkable 
consistency  and  persistency  on  the  part  of  the  Popes, 
in  seizing  every  opportunity  for  the  establishment  and 
enlargement  of  their  authority  \  but  it  would  be  difficult 
to  discover  a  period  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Church 
in  which  it  was  not  somewhere  resisted,  opposed,  or 
called  in  question.  The  English  Reformation,  for 
example,  was  only  the  termination,  final  and  definite, 
of  a  series  of  struggles  between  the  Papal  power  and 
the  government  of  the  Enghsh  people.  This  is  simple 
matter  of  history. 

The  other  fact  is  no  less  significant.  Roman  Catholics 
themselves  will  admit  that  the  Popes  have  not  always 
put  forth  the  same  claims  and  pretensions,  or,  at  least, 
that  they  have  not  always  been  put  forth  in  the  same 
form.  Nay,  further,  it  is  acknowledged  that  in  many 
cases  ^'  obedience  was  not  yielded  without  a  struggle  to 
the  Papal  See.  I  conceive,"  continues  the  writer,  "^ 
*'  that  while  the  Principate  of  the  Apostolic  Chair  of 
Rome  was  acknowledged  all  over  the  Church  .  .  .  yet 
all  that  was  contained  in  that  Principate  was  not  seen 
and  understood  by  every  bishop,  or  even  by  every  pro- 
vince of  the  Church.  From  the  cessation  of  external 
persecution  onwards  through  the  fourth  and  fifth  cen- 
turies, the  Apostolic  See,  as  the  great  unifying  power 
of  the  Church,  was  making  itself  more  and  more  felt. 
It  was  contracting  that  partial  autonomy  which  in  the 
first  ages  was  exercised  by  local  Churches." 

This  statement  will  enable  us  to  point  out  clearly  the 
different  points  of  view  from  which  the  same  acknowledged 
facts  are  regarded  by  those  who  accept  and  those  who 
Allies  :  Dr.  Pusey  and  the  Ancient  Churchy  pp.  76,  77. 


I 


46       THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION. 

deny  the  Papal  supremacy.  That  the  assertion  and 
recognition  of  this  supremacy  were  gradual  and  never 
universal,  are  facts  which  both  parties  will  probably 
admit.  We  should  concede  to  the  Roman  advocate 
that  a  kind  of  primacy  was  allowed  to  the  bishops  of 
Rome  from  very  early  times,  although  not  from  the 
beginning ;  and  while  we  should  deny  that  the  primacy 
was  primitive,  we  should  equally  deny  that  in  the  first 
days  of  its  existence  it  contained  those  elements  which 
are  assigned  to  it  by  its  modern  defenders.  A  primacy 
of  honour  was  clearly  allowed  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  We  should  deny 
that  he  was  then  recognised  as  supreme  ruler  and 
teacher.  The  writer  just  quoted  speaks  of  the  time 
when  "  the  Apostolic  See,  having  a  fuller  consciousness 
of  its  own  powers  and  rights,  as  was  natural,  than  was 
possessed  elsewhere,  began  to  stretch  out  its  arms  in 
all  directions,  and  to  make  the  whole  Body  move,  as  it 
were,  with  one  impulse  ;  "  and  he  admits  that  the  other 
bishops  then  "naturally  felt  this  action,  and,  as  the 
whole  Church  lived  upon  tradition,  as  naturally  appealed 
to  this  tradition  [of  their  own  self-government],  and 
sometimes  almost  in  menacing  language." 

Facts  like  these  then,  showing  at  least  a  great  develop 
ment  of  Papal  power,  are  generally  acknowledged  by  both 
sides.  The  difference  lies  in  the  explanation  of  the  facts. 
According  to  the  Roman  view,  the  supreme  power  was 
inherent  in  the  Papacy  from  the  beginning ;  according 
to  our  view,  it  was  a  gradual  usurpation  on  the  part  of 
the  Roman  bishops,  aided  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
times,  rendered  almost  inevitable,  we  might  say,  by  the 
state  of  the  world  during  the  ages  in  which  it  grew  up, 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION,      47 

and  therefore  permitted  by  God's  providence  until  the 
necessity  for  it  should  pass  away. 

Perhaps  we  ought  to  emphasize  this  last  remark, 
which  is  no  real  concession  to  the  Roman  claims.  We 
might  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  was  in  accordance 
with  the  will  of  God  that  a  great  Christian  monarchy 
should  exist  in  the  Middle  Ages ;  that,  whatever  evils 
were  connected  with  it,  whatever  abuses  flowed  from  its 
existence  and  exercise,  whatever  false  or  exaggerated 
claims  and  pretensions  it  might  put  forth,  it  was  on  the 
whole  a  benefit  to  the  ages  in  which  it  flourished.  All 
this  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the  conviction  that  the 
bishops  of  Rome  do  not  possess  the  power  and  authority 
to  which  they  lay  claim  by  Divine  right  j  and  that  their 
system,  having  had  its  day  and  subserved  its  purpose,  is 
destined  to  pass  away. 

This,  we  say,  is  a  view  af  Christian  history  which  in 
no  way  requires  us  to  believe  that  St.  Peter  received 
from  our  Lord  the  supreme  power  of  teaching  and  ruling 
in  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  that  he  transmitted  these 
powers,  by  the  will  and  ordinance  of  God,  to  the  Roman 
Pontiffs.  These  claims  we  hold  to  be  unsubstantiated 
by  Scripture  and  histor}'-.  We  do  not  believe  that  such 
authority  was  given  by  our  Lord  to  St.  Peter.  We  can 
find  no  evidence  of  his  having  exercised  such  authority. 
There  is  no  proof  in  early  Christian  history  that,  if 
he  had  this  power,  he  transmitted  it  to  his  supposed 
successors  in  the  Roman  See,  or  that  such  power  was 
conceded  to  them  by  the  bishops  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  the  earliest  days  of  its  history.  Now  these — let  it  be 
remarked — are  the  very  points  on  which  this  question 
turns.     If  Romans  can  prove  that  we  are  mistaken  in 


i 


48       THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  POSSESSION, 

making  these  assertions,  then  it  is  our  clear  duty  to  make 
our  submission  to  the  Papal  system,  whatever  it  may 
cost  us.  If  they  cannot — if  the  view  here  presented  be 
true  to  Scripture  and  history,  then,  whatever  our  own 
difficulties,  likings,  or  dislikings  ;  whatever  the  attractions 
of  Roman  history,  dogma,  ritual;  however  repulsive 
many  of  the  features  of  popular  Protestantism  may  appear, 
we  have  no  right  whatever  to  **  seek  reconciliation  with 
the  Roman  Bishop." 

We  implore  our  readers  to  keep  this  point  clearly, 
steadily,  constantly  before  their  eyes.  We  will  do  our 
best  to  present  it  in  its  scriptural  and  historical  bearings 
with  all  fairness  and  candour.  At  least,  the  facts  con- 
nected with  it  shall  be  stated  with  all  possible  accuracy. 
If  our  readers  will  follow  us  with  the  same  fairness  and 
earnestness,  we  shall  be  contented  with  the  result,  even 
if  it  should  be  at  variance  with  our  own  conclusions. 


(    49    ) 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  POSITION  OF  ST.  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS. 

Scripture  testimony — Principles  of  interpretation — The  quotation  of 
isolated  texts  misleading — Illustration — The  principal  text  * '  St. 
Matt.  xvi.  i8 — Different  interpretations — The  Roman  interpretation 
does  not  support  the  Papal  claims — Position  of  St.  Peter — Power 
of  the  keys — Binding  and  loosing — Not  given  to  Peter  alone  or 
supremely — Consequences  of  such  a  theory — Second  text :  St.  Luke 
xxii.  31,  32 — Third  text :  St.  John  xxi.  15-17 — Peter  has  no 
primacy  of  jurisdiction  assigned  to  him  in  the  Gospels. 

The  application  of  Scripture  to  the  subject  of  the  primacy 
of  St.  Peter  and  the  claims  of  the  Roman  See,  must  be 
made  in  the  same  spirit  and  on  the  same  principles  as  to 
all  other  subjects  ;  and  this  is  a  rule  which  should  be 
carefully  observed  on  both  sides.  We  have  no  right  to 
say  to  the  Roman  that  his  suspicious  use  of  Scripture  in 
reference  to  other  topics  precludes  his  using  it  in  behalt 
of  the  Papal  claims.     We  are  bound  to  be  true  to  our 

Kwn  principles,  whatever  we  think  of  his. 
t  On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman  controversialist  has 
no  right  to  use  the  testimony  of  holy  Scripture  on  this 
subject  in  a  manner  which  he  would  condemn  if  it  were 
apphed  to  the  discussion  of  Christian  doctrine  in  general. 
These  remarks  are  not  unneeded.     We  wish  to  study  the 

I^xts  which  are  adduced  to  prove  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter, 
I 


so  THE  POSITION  OF 

in  precisely  the  same  manner  in  which  we  should  study 
any  texts  brought  forward  to  prove  any  doctrine  which 
we  accepted  or  rejected.  We  must  consider  the  exact 
meaning  of  the  words,  the  force  and  bearing  of  the  words 
upon  the  particular  point  which  they  are  supposed  to 
support,  how  far  the  meaning  which  we  assign  to  them 
is  confirmed  by  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  and  whether 
and  to  what  extent  it  has  been  accepted  in  the  Church. 
These  are  criteria  which  we  should  feel  bound  to  apply 
to  any  text  brought  forward  in  support  of  any  subject, 
and  we  must  be  careful  to  apply  them  here. 

That  Roman  controversialists  do,  in  the  use  of  the 
texts  which  apply  to  St.  Peter,  ignore  some  of  these  prin- 
ciples which,  in  other  cases,  they  earnestly  insist  upon, 
is  most  certain.  This  need  not  be  imputed  to  them  as  a 
conscious  inconsistency.  Men  who  are  very  much  im- 
pressed with  any  particular  doctrine  or  principle,  natu- 
rally see  evidences  and  illustrations  in  support  of  that 
doctrine  where  other  men  can  see  no  traces  of  it.  But 
this  only  shows  the  necessity  of  greater  watchfulness  on 
the  part  of  their  opponents.  To  ourselves  it  appears 
that  the  Roman  fashion  of  quoting  some  of  the  texts 
which  have  reference  to  St.  Peter,  is  as  wild  and  arbi- 
trary as  the  use  which  the  most  uneducated  field-preacher 
makes  of  the  words  of  prophets  and  apostles.  We  have 
heard  Roman  Catholics,  and  persons  on  the  point  of 
becoming  Roman  Catholics,  quote  one  of  their  favourite 
texts,  as  though  the  mere  recitation  of  a  few  words  spoken 
by  our  Lord,  without  any  further  consideration  of  their 
meaning,  must  forever  settle  the  question.  "  Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  My  Church  " — these 
words  are  quoted,  and  the  triumphant  question  is  asked ; 


ST,  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS.  51 

"  How  can  you  get  over  that  ? "  And  if  you  suggest, 
however  meekl}^,  that  the  text  says  nothing  of  the  Pope, 
nor  of  any  successor  that  St.  Peter  might  have,  nor  does 
it  determine  the  exact  nature  of  the  building,  or  in 
what  sense  St.  Peter  was  the  rock,  even  if  the  word 
applied  to  him ;  you  are  probably  told  that  you  are 
trifling,  or  evading  the  force  of  the  text ;  and  instead  of 
any  calm  attempt  to  ascertain  its  real  meaning  being 
made  or  allowed,  the  words  are  quoted  again  still  more 
triumphantly,  and  the  cause  is  finished. 

That  this  is  either  an  exaggeration  or  a  rare  instance 
of  the  treatment  to  which  these  texts  are  subjected  no 
one  will  suggest  who  is  acquainted  with  the  manner  in 
which  this  controversy  is  commonly  conducted.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  chief  of  the  three  great  texts  which  are 
commonly  brought  forward  in  support  of  the  Roman 
claims.  We  refer,  of  course,  to  St.  Matt.  xvi.  18,^ 
"Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  My 
Church." 

We  have  at  this  moment  before  us  a  sermon  or 
lecture  delivered  by  an  eminent  Roman  ecclesiastic,  in 
which  he  not  only  assumes,  but  plainly  declares,  that  any 
one  who  thinks,  or  professes  to  think,  that  "this  rock'' 
can  mean  anything  but  St.  Peter,  must  either  be  wilfully 
blind,  or  else  so  prejudiced,  and  indeed  perverted,  by  an 
unfortunate  position,  or  as  he  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest, 
by  worldly  interests  and  motives,  that  he  is  incapable  of 
seeing  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words,  which  could  not 
be  otherwise  understood  unless  there  were  some  in- 
tellectual prejudice  or  moral  obstruction  in  the  way. 

*  The  other  two,  which  will  hereafter  be  noticed,  are  St.  Luke 
xxii.  31,  32  ;  and  St.  John  xxi.  15-17. 


52  THE  POSITION  OF 

We  have  no  doubt  that  this  writer  was  perfectly 
sincere,  and  thought  himself  in  no  way  lacking  in 
Christian  charity,  when  he  made  these  remarks ;  yet  he 
must  have  known  that  some  of  the  Fathers  did  not  take 
his  view  of  the  text,  and  he  could  hardly  imagine  that 
those  Fathers,  some  of  whom  believed  in  the  primacy  of 
St.  Peter,  and  regarded  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  in  some 
sense  his  successor,  were  so  prejudiced  as  not  to  be  able 
to  see  the  meaning  of  our  Lord's  words. 

A  recent  Roman  Catholic  commentator  on  this  passage 
declares  roundly,  that  only  one  meaning  can  be  attached 
to  the  words  ''this  rock,"  according  to  all  "the  laws  of 
grammar,"  and  that  to  attribute  any  other  meaning  to 
them  is  ''  to  do  violence  to  the  phrase ; "  and  yet  that 
same  writer  is  constrained  to  acknowledge  that  a  good 
many  of  the  Fathers,  and  these  not  the  least  important, 
are  against  him.  "How  comes  it,"  he  asks,  "that 
several  of  the  Fathers,  distinguished  exegetes  for  the  most 
part,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  St.  Hilary,  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  St.  Augustine,  St  Cyril  [he  might  have  added 
to  the  number],  have  held  that  the  foundation,  on  which 
Jesus  Christ  has  built  the  Church,  is  simply  the  faith  or 
confidence  of  His  disciples  ?  "  The  reconciliation  is  easy, 
he  says;  and  he  proceeds  to  prove  his  statement  to 
his  own  satisfaction;  but  he  does  not  deny  the  fact. 
Surely  we  may  be  contented  to  be  charged  with  igno- 
rance, prejudice,  and  obstinacy,  with  a  perversion  of 
the  words  of  Scripture  and  a  violation  of  the  laws  of 
grammar,  when  in  this  accusation  we  are  associated  with 
such  names  as  those  which  have  been  mentioned. 

We  are  unable  to  attach  the  greatest  importance  to 
the  mere  application  of  the  word  "rock.''     The  inter- 


ST,  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS,  53 

pretation  of  the  phrase  in  which  it  occurs  may  be  settled 
either  way,  without  greatly  affecting  the  main  question 
before  us.  It  is,  however,  of  some  importance  to  show 
that  these  words  of  our  Lord  were  not  universally  or 
even  generally  understood  to  confer  a  primacy  upon  St. 
Peter,  and  still  less  upon  his  supposed  successors  in  the 
See  of  Rome. 

There  are,  in  fact,  three  interpretations  of  the  phrase 
"upon  this  rock,"  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
and  not  one  of  them  is  precisely  the  same  as  that 
adopted  by  the  ordinary  Roman  controversialists. 

Some,  for  example,  regard  Peter  himself  as  the  rock  ; 
but  of  these  some  suggest  that  it  was  Peter  not  as  a 
man,  an  individual,  but  as  a  believer.  And  this  is  put 
forth  in  two  forms,  some  taking  Peter,  in  this  case,  as 
the  representative  of  all  believers,  others  regarding  his 
faith  or  his  confession  as  the  rock.  This  seems  to  have 
been  the  earUer  view  of  St.  Augustine,  as  expressed  in 
his  treatise  on  St.  John,  and  in  his  sermons.  "  On  this 
rock,"  he  says,"^  'Svill  I  build  My  Church ;  not  upon  the 
Peter  {Petrus),  which  thou  art,  but  upon  the  rock 
i^Petrani)^  which  thy  confession  is."  And  the  same 
view  is  taken  by  many  of  the  Fathers. 

Others  regard  the  rock  as  Christ  Himself;  and  this 
is  the  view  presented  by  St.  Augustine  in  his  retracta- 
tions, probably  without  intending  to  condemn  the  other 
aspect  of  the  truth,  which  is  closely  allied  with  this. 
"  For,"  he  remarks,  "  it  was  not  said  to  him,  *  Thou  art 
the  rock  {Fetra),'  but  '  thou  art  Peter  {Petrus):  But 
the  rock  was   Christ,   whom   Simon  confessed,   as  the 

*  Serm.  270.  2.  St.  Augustine  seems  to  have  given,  at  different 
times,  all  tlie  three  interpretations. 


54  THE  POSITION  OF 

whole  Church  confesses  Him,  and  was  called  Peter." 
We  repeat  that  we  do  not  regard  the  controversy  re- 
specting the  interpretation  of  this  phrase  as  of  the 
greatest  importance,"^  for  the  simple  reason  that  its 
decision  either  way  would  finally  settle  nothing.  But 
it  is  necessary  to  point  out  that  so  far  from  the  ordinary 
Roman  view  being  the  universal  one,  it  has  not  even  a 
majority  of  voices  in  its  favour;  and  even  those  early 
writers  who  regard  Peter  as  the  rock,  yet  refer  the 
word  to  him  personally,  or  to  him  as  a  believer,  and  not 
to  him  and  any  successors  that  he  might  have. 

*  The  following  summary  of  patristic  opiuion  on  this  passage  is 
given  in  a  pamphlet  attributed  to  the  late  Bishop  Ketteler  of  Mainz  : 
**The  first  interpretation  asserts  that  the  Church  is  built  upon  Peter; 
and  this  is  followed  by  seventeen  Fathers,  among  whom  are  Ori- 
gen,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Leo, 
Augustine. 

"The  second  asserts  that  the  Church  is  built  upon  all  the 
Apostles,  whom  Peter  represented  by  reason  of  his  primacy ;  and 
this  is  followed  by  eight  Fathers,  and  among  them,  Origen,  Cyprian, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Theodoret. 

"The  third  asserts  that  the  words  are  to  be  understood  of  the 
faith  which  Peter  had  confessed,  and  particularly  that  this  faith — 
the  profession  of  faith  by  which  Christ  is  declared  to  be  the  Son  of 
the  living  God — is  the  eternal  and  immovable  foundation  of  the 
Church.  And  this  interpretation  is  followed  oy  forty-four  Fathers 
and  Doctors,  and  among  them  by  the  Eastern — Origen,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  the  Wes- 
tern— Hilary,  Ambrose,  Leo,  Augustine. 

"The  fourth  asserts  that  the  words  are  to  be  understood  of  that 
rock  which  Peter  had  confessed,  that  is  Christ,  so  that  it  is  declared 
that  the  Church  is  founded  upon  Christ ;  and  this  interpretation  is 
followed  by  sixteen  Fathers  and  Doctors. 

"  The  fifth  patristic  interpretation  understands,  under  the  name  of 
Peter,  the  faithful  generally,  who,  believing  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of 


ST.  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS.  55 

But  even  if  we  were  to  regard  the  application  of  the 
phrase  to  St.  Peter  as  beyond  all  question,  we  should 
still  have  to  determine  in  what  sense  Peter  was  this  rock, 
and  in  what  sense  Jesus  Christ  intended  to  build  His 
Church  upon  it.  We  know  that  in  one  sense  He  is 
Himself  the  foundation;  for  "other  foundation  can  no 
man  lay."  We  know  that,  in  another  sense,  the  Church 
is  built  upon  the  foundation  of  apostles  and  prophets. 
It  would  also  be  true,  in  accordance  with  a  wide  patristic 
interpretation  of  the  passage,  to  say  that  the  Church  is 
founded  upon  the  faith  and  confession  of  Jesus  as  "the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  These  are  all  obvious 
truths;  and  before  we  determine  the  meaning  of  the 
honour  here  assigned  to  St.  Peter,  we  must  carefully 
consider  the  particular  sense  in  which  the  building  of 
the  Church  upon  him  is  intended. 

Certainly  it  cannot  be  meant  that  He  is  the  very  basis, 
foundation,  support  of  the  Church.  That  is  not  possible. 
Nor  is  anything  even  remotely  conveyed  as  to  any 
future  governing  of  the  Church,  by  him  or  his  successors, 
in  these  words,  at  least.  By  him,  it  would  be  said,  sup- 
posing him  to  be  the  rock,  our  Lord  actually  founded 
the  Church;  and  this  would  not  be  denied.  St.  Peter 
was  the  instrument  employed  for  that  work  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  Then  he  opened  the  door  of  the  new 
society  to  Jews,  and  afterwards,  in  the  person  of  Cor- 
nelius, to  Gentiles. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  position  of  St.  Peter 
in  the  apostolic  body  was  a  very  remarkable,  peculiar, 
and  conspicuous  one.     He  was  the  foremost  man  among 

God,  are  constituted  as  living  stones,  of  which  the  Church  is  built." 
Friedrich,  Docunieitta,  pp.  6,  7. 


56  THE  POSITION  OF 

them  all,  foremost  in  speech  and  action,  perhaps  we 
might  add  foremost  in  dignity  and  honour ;  but  we 
know  of  no  authority  in  the  New  Testament  for  adding, 
foremost  in  power.  A  primacy  of  honour,  although  not 
of  jurisdiction,  may  be  accorded  to  him,  and  the 
denial  of  this  is  not  merely  useless  in  the  controversy 
with  the  Roman  view,  but  it  actually  embarrasses  the 
sincere  student  of  history,  whose  one  great  desire  must 
be  to  know  and  understand  the  facts. 

If  St.  Peter  had  not  this  position,  how  could  it  come 
to  pass  that  the  Roman  view  of  his  relation  to  the  other 
Apostles  should  ever  be  accepted?  The  limits  of  his 
primacy,  if  we  may  use  the  word,  we  shall  ascertain 
without  much  difficulty  from  the  later  writings  of  the 
New  Testament ;  but  the  pre-eminence  of  his  position, 
partly  arising  from  his  own  temperament  and  character, 
partly  assigned  to  him  by  the  ordinance  of  our  Lord,  in 
order  to  the  unity  of  the  Apostolic  body,  can  hardly  be 
called  in  question. 

One  aspect  of  this  truth  is  stated  well  and  eloquently 
by  St.  Chrysostom,  in  speaking  of  St.  Peter's  confession 
of  our  Lord,  which  was  the  occasion  of  the  words  which 
we  have  been  examining.  When  he  had  quoted  our 
Lord's  question,  he  goes  on  :  "  What  answer  will  Peter, 
the  mouth  of  the  Apostles,  give  to  this  question.? 
Always  ardent,  the  Coryphaeus  of  the  Apostolic  choir, 
when  all  are  interrogated,  it  is  he  who  replies.  .  .  Peter 
dashes  forward,  anticipates  all  the  others,  and  cries : 
'Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.'  It 
was,  in  fact,  his  custom  to  speak  for  all." 

This  readiness  in  speech  and  action  marked  him  out 
as  a  leader ;  and  the  discipUne  of  grace  so  changed  the 


ST,  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS,  57 

man  of  hasty  and  sometimes  feeble  impulses  into  the 
man  of  rock,  that  he  was  adapted  and  chosen  to  be 
the  centre  of  unity  in  the  Apostolic  body. 

It  may  be  that  the  building  of  the  Church  of  which 
our  Lord  speaks,  had  reference  to  the  first  preaching  of 
the  full  Gospel  of  the  kingdom  on  the  day  of  Pentecost; 
but  if  so,  this  need  not  exclude  the  common  view  of  the 
Fathers  that  it  was  on  the  faith  and  confession  of  St. 
Peter  that  the  Church  was  founded  :  in  their  view  it  was 
upon  Peter  the  believer  and  confessor  that  Christ  would 
found  His  Church ;  Peter  the  man  was  not  a  rock ;  he 
was,  in  his  worse  moments,  as  a  Satan ;  and  it  would  be 
almost  as  reasonable  for  an  antipetrine  party  to  form  a 
theory  of  St.  Peter's  position  among  the  Apostles,  from 
the  strong  language  of  denunciation  in  which  our  Lord 
bid  the  offending  disciple  get  behind  Him,  as  for  those 
who  claim  the  succession  from  the  Apostle  to  base  their 
claims  upon  these  words  of  Christ. 

Whatever  may  be  the  peculiar  meaning  which  we 
attach  to  our  Lord's  promise,  no  one  can  reasonably 
deny  that  St.  Peter  was  a  leading  man  among  the 
Apostles  j  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  impossible  to 
prove  that  he  had  any  authority  over  the  others,  that  he 
determined  the  doctrines  of  the  faith  beyond  any  of  the 
other  eleven,  that  he  exercised  any  power  which  they 
did  not  share  with  him  as  equals,  or  that  he  transmitted 
any  peculiar  authority  which  he  possessed  to  any  special 
person,  office,  or  position. 

But  the  words  which  we  have  been  examining  are 
followed  by  a  second  promise,  and  a  third ;  the  promises 
of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosing.     It  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose 


58  THE  POSITION  OF 

to  consider  both  together,  and  especially  the  last.  In 
doing  so  we  need  concern  ourselves  very  little  with  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  possession  of  the  keys,  or  of  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing.  It  may  suffice  to  remark 
that,  while  there  is  perhaps  no  direct  reference  here  to  the 
retaining  and  the  remitting  of  sins,  the  words  are  intended 
to  set  forth  the  Apostolic  authority  in  the  government  of 
the  Church,  the  control  which  the  twelve  exercised  over 
the  treasures  of  grace  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
power  of  admitting  or  excluding  others  from  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  Church. 

It  may,  at  first  sight,  appear  that  such  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  is  a  concession  of  the  whole  Roman 
claim;  but  this  would  be  an  entire  misapprehension. 
Indeed,  there  would  be  nothing  more  unsafe  than  to 
take  what  people  would  call  the  obvious  and  natural 
meaning  of  many  passages  of  this  kind  as  conveying  the 
true  mind  of  the  speaker.  In  most  of  such  cases  the 
obvious  and  natural  meaning  is  that  which  the  reader 
brings  in  his  mind  to  the  perusal  of  the  passage. 

Can  we  say,  for  example,  that  our  Lord  has  given 
absokitely  to  St.  Peter,  or  to  any  other  man  or  angel,  the 
absolute  power  of  government  over  the  Church?  We 
know  that  it  is  not  so.  It  is  He  alone  that  "hath  the  key 
of  David  "  absolutely.  He  alone  "  openeth,  and  no  man 
shutteth;  and  shutteth,  and  no  man  openeth. '^  What- 
ever authority  may  be  given  to  St.  Peter  in  the  Church, 
he  exercises  in  subordination  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  under  the  guidance  of  His  Spirit.  This  will  be 
generally  conceded. 

But  further,  is  it  to  be  imagined  that  these  powers, 
whatever  they  were,  and  at  this  moment  we  raise  no 


ST.  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS.  59 

question  on  that  point,  were  committed  to  St.  Peter 
alone  ?  Yet  this  is  what  might  seem  to  be  taught  by 
what  some  persons  would  call  the  obvious  and  natural 
meaning  of  the  words,  "whatsoever  thotc  shalt  bind," 
"  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose."  If  so,  then  what  is  the 
meaning  of  those  other  words  recorded  by  St.  John : 
*' Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted;  and 
whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained?"  These 
powers,  then,  were  not  committed  to  St.  Peter  alone;  but 
also  to  the  other  Apostles.  And  this  is  in  a  sense 
admitted  by  Roman  Catholics  themselves. 

Thus,  to  quote  the  words  of  the  commentator  to  whom 
we  have  already  referred  :  "  Without  doubt  we  under- 
stand our  Lord  to  address  to  the  whole  Apostolic  college 
the  words  which  He  pronounces  at  this  moment  ex- 
clusively to  St.  Peter ;  .  .  .  but  He  does  not  make  them 
equal  to  St.  Peter,  who  is  here  constituted  their  chief 
.  .  .  He  does  not  confer  the  keys  on  them  (the  other 
apostles)  without  restriction,  as  He  does  on  St.  Peter. 
They  are  placed  under  the  direction  of  a  superior  who 
will  continue  to  be  for  them  that  which  Jesus  Christ  had 
been." 

These  words,  by  an  eminent  French  ecclesiastic, 
represent  quite  fairly  the  Roman  view;  and  a  careful 
examination  of  them  will  show  how  much  is  read  into 
the  text,  rather  than  fairly  drawn  out  of  it.  The  keys  are 
conferred  upon  St.  Peter  without  restriction,  we  are  told, 
and  this  is  quite  compatible  with  the  meaning  of  the 
words  as  they  stand,  but  cannot  possibly  represent  their 
real  intention  and  significance.  At  the  same  time  we 
are  told  that  they  are  addressed  to  the  whole  Apostolic 
college,  in  which  case  we  could  not  be  sure  that  they 


I 


6o  THE  POSITION  OF 

conferred  those  pre-eminent  powers  upon  St.  Peter.  The 
truth  is,  that  they  were  spoken  to  the  whole  Apostolic 
college,  and  to  St.  Peter  as  its  leading  and  foremost 
member;  but  they  determine  nothing  as  to  the  relations 
which  the  Apostles  shall  sustain  to  each  other,  or  as 
to  the  position  of  Peter  hniiself  or  any  other  member  of 
the  body. 

Besides,  if  we  were  to  grant  that  St.  Peter  had  this 
place  of  supreme  government  in  the  college  of  the 
Apostles — which  we  cannot  grant,  because  we  can  find 
no  evidence  of  it  in  the  New  Testament — we  should 
still  lack  any  proof  that  this  power  descended  to  any 
successor.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  whole  passage 
which  gives  us  a  hint  that  there  is  here  the  establishment 
of  a  spiritually  hereditary  monarchy  :  what  is  said  is 
quite  compatible  with  the  bestowal  of  these  powers  upon 
the  Church  as  represented  by  the  Apostles,  upon  the 
Apostles  as  represented  by  St.  Peter.  But  there  is 
nothing  to  hint  that  behind  and  below  St.  Peter,  there  is 
a  Roman  Pontiff  who  has  the  reversion  of  all  the  privi- 
leges and  powers  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles. 

Let  us  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  this  is  the  case ; 
and  what  follows  ?  After  the  death  of  St.  Peter,  all  the 
Apostles  who  remained  alive  must  have  referred  cases  of 
difficulty  to  the  ultimate  and  supreme  decision  of  the 
Bishops  of  Rome.  St.  John,  in  his  old  age  at  Ephesus, 
at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  must  have  had  recourse 
to  Clement,  the  successor  of  Peter  and  Linus  and  Cletus 
in  the  Apostolic  See  !  Happily  for  us  St.  Clement 
says  nothing  of  the  kind  in  that  precious  epistle  of  his 
to  the  Corinthians,  which  we  still  possess — not  even  in 
that  fragment  which  has  recently  been  so  wonderfully 


ST.  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS.  6i 

recovered  !  The  absurdity  in  which  we  are  thus  landed 
by  the  Roman  theory  will  become  more  apparent  when 
we  consider  the  next  text. 

The  second  of  the  three  great  texts  which  are  adduced 
to  support  the  Petrine  Sovereignty  and  that  of  his 
successors  the  Popes,  is  St.  Luke  xxii.  31,  32.  It  will 
probably  astonish  some  of  our  Protestant  readers,  who 
may  not  be  familiar  with  the  Roman  arguments,  to  hear 
that  the  words  of  our  Lord  to  St.  Peter,  "  When  thou  art 
converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren,''  are  brought  forward 
to  prove  that  St.  Peter  was  appointed  supreme  teacher 
among  the  Apostles  and  in  the  Church  ;  and  not  only  so, 
but  that  the  same  power  was,  by  these  words,  assured 
to  his  successors  in  the  Roman  See  ! 

It  would  hardly  be  possible  to  find  words  more  dis- 
tinctly personal,  and,  so  to  speak,  local  and  occasional, 
in  their  origin,  meaning,  and  application.  St.  Peter  had 
sinned  and  fallen  ;  but  his  Master  would  not  abandon 
him  :  his  faith  should  not  utterly  and  finally  fail,  and  his 
knowledge  of  his  own  weakness  and  of  God's  grace 
would  fit  him  to  be  a  teacher,  a  guide,  and  a  strengthener 
of  others  who  might  be  tempted  and  fall. 

To  derive  an  argument  for  the  special  prerogatives  of 
St.  Peter  from  the  use  of  the  plural  at  the  beginning,  and 
the  singular  at  the  end  of  the  passage, — ^' Satan  hath 
desired  to  hsive you^  that  he  may  sift yoii  as  wheat;  but 
I  have  prayed  for  ^/lee,  that  f/iy  faith  fail  not " — is  cer- 
tainly very  far  fetched.  The  special  reference  to  St. 
Peter  is  sufficiently  accounted  for  by  our  Lord's  foresight 
of  his  special  temptation  and  fall.  And  the  command 
which  follows  upon  the  assurance,  has  distinct  and  direct 
reference  to  his  sin  and  his  repentance.     Indeed,  if  we 


62  THE  POSITION  OF 

were  as  anxious  to  depress  this  great  apostle,  as  others 
are  to  exalt  him,  we  might  point  out  that  there  was  a 
moment  in  which  Peter's  faith  did  fail,  when  he  denied 
his  Master ;  and  further  that  he  only  imperfectly  obeyed 
the  command  to  strengthen  the  brethren,  since  by  his 
vacillation  he  on  one  important  occasion  greatly  weak- 
ened them.  But  it  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  point 
out  that  these  words  do  not  in  any  way  determine  St. 
Peter's  official  position  or  teaching  power,  to  which,  as 
far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  words  or  from  the  connec- 
tion in  which  they  stand,  there  is  no  allusion  whatever. 

Let  us,  for  a  moment,  suppose  that  these  words  are 
intended  to  teach  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the  primacy 
and  infallibility  of  Peter  and  his  successors.  Jesus  Christ 
says  He  has  asked  inerrancy  for  His  Apostle,  and  he, 
being  thus  made  infallible,  is  commanded  to  strengthen 
his  brethren ;  in  other  words,  to  prevent  the  other 
Apostles  from  falling  into  error.  Extravagant  as  this 
supposition  may  appear,  there  are  Roman  controver- 
sialists who  do  not  shrink  from  it  -,  and  who  are  ready  to 
maintain  that  St.  Peter  was  infallible  in  a  sense  different 
from  the  other  Apostles.* 

According  to  this  view  of  the  text,  St.  Peter  alone  was 
immediately  infallible,  as  alone  standing  immediately 
under  that  Divine  guidance  which  secured  inerrancy  to 

*  **  Duo  igitur  prseter  csetera  statiiit,  quibus  infallibilitatis  exequui- 
tionem  obtineret  :  ac  primo  quidem  suo  numine  ita  Petro  adesse,  ut 
ipse  numquam  a  veritate,  coelitus  revelata  aberraret :  deinde  vero 
apostolorum  omnium  ita  animos  prseparare,  voluntatesque  dirigere, 
ut  iidem  et  perspicue  viderent  fas  non  esse  a  Petri  fide  discedere,  et 
constanter  vellent  in  una  eademque  cum  Petro  fide  perseverare." 
Passaglia,  De  Prerogativis  Beati  Petri,  Lib.  ii.  c.  14.  See  the 
whole  chapter. 


ST.  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS.  63 

the  Church,  and  the  other  Apostles  were  infallible  by 
reason  of  their  connection  with  him.  It  will  hereafter 
be  considered  how  far  such  a  view  accords  or  disagrees 
with  the  representations  respecting  the  Apostles  in  other 
parts  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  certainly  nothing 
of  the  kind  elsewhere  hinted  in  the  Gospels ;  and  one 
tries  to  imagine  the  emotions  with  which  St.  Paul  would 
have  listened  to  the  enunciation  of  such  a  theory  about 
the  time  when  he  was  composing  his  epistle  to  the 
Galatians  ! 

If,  again,  we  recur  to  the  supposition  of  St.  John's 
position  in  the  Church  after  the  death  of  St.  Peter,  we 
try  to  imagine  the  aged  apostle  referring*  to  St.  Clement 
of  Rome,  on  the  appearance  of  some  new  form  of  the 
ever-changeful  Gnostic  heresy.  As  we  have  said,  St. 
Clement  has  left  no  record  of  his  pretensions  to  be  a 
guide  of  apostles,  although  surely  in  that  case  he  might 
have  claimed  to  speak  with  authority  to  the  Christians  of 
Corinth ;  nor  does  St.  John  in  any  of  his  writings  use  the 
form  so  familiar  to  us  in  modern  times,  that  he  submits 
beforehand  the  statements  which  he  makes  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  1 

As  regards  the  judgments  of  the  Fathers,  most  of  them 
refer  the  words  to  St.  Peter  as  fallen,  restored,  and  thus 
specially  qualified  to  help  the  penitent.  A  few  of  them 
refer  them  to  the  primacy  of  the  Apostle,  none  to  that 
of  the  Pope.  The  first  who  discovered  in  Christ's  prayer 
that  Peter's  faith  should  not  fail  an  argument  for  Papal 
infallibility  was  himself  a  Pope — Agatho,  near  the  end  of 
the  seventh  century. 

If  ordinary  readers  of  the  Bible  were  not  prepared  to 
read  an  argument  for  Papal  infallibility  in  St.  Luke  xxii. 


i 


64  THE  POSITION  OF 

32,  they  will  be  no  more  prepared  to  see  a  proof  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  Roman  pastorate  in  St.  John  xxi. 
15-17.  That  beautiful  narrative  sets  before  us  a  most 
charming  picture  of  the  intercourse  of  our  loving  Lord 
with  His  penitent  Apostle.  By  his  sin  he  had  given  his 
Master  a  right  to  doubt  of  the  truth  of  his  affection  ;  yet 
he  could  appeal  to  Him  who  reads  the  heart,  for  an 
answer  to  His  own  question.  The  evidence  which  was 
henceforth  required  of  his  loving  devotion  was  his  feeding 
of  the  sheep  and  of  the  lambs  of  the  flock  of  Christ. 
Nothing  could  be  more  simple  or  more  beautiful.  There 
is  not  a  word  of  Peter's  primacy  ;  but  only  of  his  personal 
and  official  relation  to  his  Master,  as  a  loving  believer 
and  a  faithful  pastor  of  his  flock.  Still  less  is  there  a 
word  as  to  any  one  who  should  henceforth  occupy  the 
place  of  supreme  pastor  of  the  sheep  of  God  in  the 
Church. 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  the  Gospels,  which  teaches 
us  that  St.  Peter  was  placed  over  the  other  Apostles,  with 
greater  power  and  authority  to  teach  or  rule  than  that 
which  they  possessed.  Even  Roman  controversialists 
admit  that  the  words  which  were  addressed  to  him  alone, 
were  spoken  to  him  as  the  representative  of  the  Apostolic 
college,  and  we  do  not  deny  that  he  had  a  foremost 
place,  a  kind  of  primacy  of  honour  among  the  other 
Apostles. 

Let  it,  however,  be  marked  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  Gospels  which  helps  more  nearly  to  define  that 
primacy;  and  although  he  is  everywhere  the  foremost 
among  them,  the  first  to  speak  and  the  first  to  act,  there 
is  nowhere  a  hint  that  he  had  any  power  or  privilege 
which  did  not  belong   to  the  rest,  or  that  our  Lord 


ST,  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS.  65 

communicated  His  commands  to  the  eleven  or  to  any  one 
among  them  through  Peter  as  their  chief.  It  is  true,  he 
was  with  our  Lord  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration ;  but 
so  were  James  and  John  :  he  was  also  with  Him  in  the 
garden  during  His  agony ;  but  the  same  other  two 
disciples  were  there  as  well.  On  one  solemn  occasion, 
it  would  appear,  he  did  not  occupy  the  place  at  the 
table  next  to  our  Lord.  That  John  reclined  beside 
Him  at  the  last  supper  is  clear ;  and  it  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  Peter  was  next  to  John,  from  his  getting  the 
latter  to  put  the  question  respecting  Judas  to  our  Lord. 
Painters  often  set  Peter  on  the  right  hand  and  John 
on  the  left.  Ecclesiastically,  they  may  be  right ;  histori- 
cally, they  are  probably  wrong.  Those  who  witnessed  the 
Passion  Play  at  Oberammergau  may  remember  that  Peter, 
who  was  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  Jesus,  sprang  from 
his  seat,  passed  behind  his  Master,  and  requested  John 
to  ask  the  question.  One  felt  that  it  was  hardly  possible 
that  this  should  have  been  the  situation.  Yet  if  St. 
Peter  had  happened  to  be  next  to  Jesus,  and  John  next 
to  him ;  and  if  St.  John  had  requested  St.  Peter  to  put 
this  question  to  our  Lord  and  to  convey  the  answer 
back  to  him,  what  a  beautiful  illustration  the  Roman 
advocate  would  have  found,  in  this  scene,  of  the  primacy 
of  the  prince  of  the  apostles  ! 

As  far  as  the  Gospels  are  concerned,  there  is  abso- 
lutely nothing  to  show  that  St.  Peter  enjoyed  any 
superiority  of  power  to  the  others.  What  the  meaning 
of  his  primacy  may  be  we  shall  expect  to  find  illus- 
trated in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Christian  society, 
more  especially  after  our  Lord's  removal  from  His 
disciples,  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the 

E 


66  ST.  PETER  IN  THE  GOSPELS. 

day  of  Pentecost.  It  is  to  the  examination  of  this  part 
of  the  argument  that  we  must  now  proceed.  If  St.  Peter 
had  this  place  of  supreme  authority  among  the  twelve, 
we  cannot  fail  to  perceive  evidences  of  it  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  in  the  apostolic  epistles.  We  will  try 
to  examine  these  with  care  and  candour,  considering 
first  his  general  position  in  the  Church  and  his  relation 
to  the  other  apostles,  and  afterwards  more  particularly 
the  history  x)f  the  first  council  at  Jerusalem. 


(    (>7    \ 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ST.  PETER  IN  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN  RELATION 
TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES. 

The  interpretation  of  the  Gospel  texts  must  be  sought  in  the  Acts  and 
apostoHcal  epistles — Was  the  primacy  of  Peter  one  of  honour  only, 
or  of  power  also? — Peter  not  the  master  of  the  Church — In  the 
Acts — In  the  Epistles — St,  Peter  had  no  authority  over  the  other 
apostles — All  his  powers  and  privileges  shared  by  the  rest — Illus- 
trated by  recorded  facts — By  the  relation  between  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul — A  relation  of  perfect  equality — St.  Paul's  epistles— His 
independence  of  Peter  and  the  other  apostles. 

If  the  Roman  view  of  the  privileges  of  St.  Peter  be 
the  true  one,  it  will  be  confirmed  and  illustrated  by 
the  primitive  records  of  the  Church's  history.  If  the 
Roman  interpretation  of  the  three  great  texts  be  accurate, 
that  teaching  will  not  be  contradicted,  but  supported,  by 
a  consideration  of  the  position  which  St.  Peter  actually 
occupied  in  the  Church  after  its  constitution  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  and  by  his  relation  to  his  brother  apostles. 

We  must  repeat,  it  would  be  most  unsafe  to  take  any 
passage  of  Scripture,  and  affix  to  it  off-hand  the  meaning 
which  to  us  might  seem  most  probable  on  a  mere  super- 
ficial and  passing  examination  of  its  contents.  Such  a 
treatment  of  Scripture,  especially  if  it  were  employed 
against  their  own  positions,  would  be  indignantly  and 


68       ST.  PETER  IN  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN 

justly  resented  by  Roman  theologians.  They  would  tell 
us  that  we  are  not  to  isolate  a  few  words  of  the  Bible, 
and  interpret  them  to  suit  our  own  purpose,  however 
plausible  our  interpretation  may  be.  We  are  bound  to 
consider  them  in  their  whole  connection,  in  the  light  of 
the  general  testimony  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  with  due 
regard  to  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church.  If  a 
text  seems  to  teach  a  doctrine  which  finds  no  support  in 
other  parts  of  Holy  Scripture,  it  is  almost  certain  that 
we  have  misunderstood  it.  If  it  seems  to  teach  anything 
which  is  elsewhere  contradicted,  or  which  is  evidently 
incompatible  with  the  general  testimony  of  inspiration, 
then  we  may  be  quite  sure  that  our  interpretation  of  it 
has  been  erroneous."^ 

These  reasonable  and  Catholic  principles  of  interpre- 
tation we  must  insist  upon  applying  to  those  texts  in 
the  Gospels  which  the  Papal  advocates  understand  as 
supporting  the  sovereignty  of  St.  Peter  and  his  successors 
in  the  Roman  See.     We  must  insist — and  they  will  not 

*  This  principle  of  interpretation  is  excellently  stated  by 
Passaglia,  De  Prerog.  Pet.,  lib.  ii.  c.  i,  21 :  **  Catholics  and  Protes- 
tants are  agreed  in  considering  analogy  as  one  of  the  best  helps  in 
interpretation,  and  in  assigning  to  it  the  force  of  a  real  parallelism, 
a  proceeding  which  rests  on  the  necessity  of  the  Scripture  presenting 
one  whole  and  harmonious  body  of  doctrine  in  its  several  parts. 
And  in  order  not  to  deprive  this  help  of  its  efficacy,  both  parties 
give  two  conditions  for  its  exercise  ;  the  first,  that  no  sense  be  put 
upon  passages  of  Scripture  contrary  to  analogy  ;  the  second,  that  no 
violence  be  used  to  the  language  of  Scripture  to  conform  it  with 
analogy,  which  would  be  imposing  on  Holy  Writ  the  sense  wanted 
from  it.  These  two  faults  carefully  avoided,  analogy  is  of  great 
service,  and  throws  much  light  upon  interpretation."  (We  give  the 
translation  of  Mr.  Allies.) 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES.     69 

deny  the  general  truth  of  the  principle,  however  we  may 
differ  when  we  come  to  apply  it — that,  if  St.  Peter  had 
that  position  of  supremacy  assigned  to  him  by  our  Lord, 
then  we  shall  without  doubt  find  unmistakable  traces 
of  it  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  A  position  so  re- 
markable and  unique  must  be  recognised  in  the  first 
historical  records  of  the  Church — the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  :  it  cannot  possibly  be  ignored  in  the  various 
apostoUc  epistles  which  have  descended  to  us,  especially 
as  his  name  is  not  unfrequently  introduced. 

As  we  read  those  texts  in  the  Gospels  w^iich  were 
examined  in  the  previous  chapter,  we  find  that  St.  Peter 
had  a  kind  of  priority  or  primacy  among  the  apostles  ; 
but  it  was  a  priority  of  honour,  not  of  jurisdiction — not 
of  power  or  authority ;  his  position  is  that  of  a  pri?nus 
inter  pares  (the  first  among  equals),  not  that  of  a  superior 
over  inferiors. 

The  Roman  view,  on  the  contrary,  demands  for  St. 
Peter  (and  for  his  successors)  a  position  of  sovereignty 
practically  unlimited,  or  at  least  limited  only  by  the 
Pope's  own  views  of  the  limitations.  They  hold  that 
St.  Peter  was  the  monarch  or  master  of  the  Church, 
which  might  be  regarded  as  his  servant  \  that  he  was  its 
supreme  teacher  and  governor,  having  his  power  con- 
trolled only  by  our  Lord,  whose  representative  he  was ; 
and  that  the  other  apostles  possessed  only  a  power 
derived  from  him,  and  dependent  upon  his,  being,  so 
to  speak,  united  to  Christ  through  Peter,  and  receiving 
their  rights,  privileges,  and  power  from  their  Master 
only  through  him  who  was  their  chief 

These  two  views  are  quite  clear  and  quite  distinct.  If 
the  one  be  true,  the  other  cannot.     It  will  therefore  be 


70       ST.  PETER  IN  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN 

possible  to  confront  them  successively  with  the  plain 
facts  recorded  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles ;  so  that  we 
may  hope  to  determine  whether  the  one  or  the  other  is 
supported  by  these  testimonies. 

Let  us  try  to  be  quite  clear  on  this  point.  We  hold 
that  it  is  quite  impossible  that  these  claims  made  on 
behalf  of  St.  Peter,  if  they  are  true,  should  be  unknown 
or  ignored  in  the  first  days  of  the  Church's  history ;  if 
they  were  known  and  recognized,  we  shall  certainly  find 
unmistakable  reference  to  them  in  the  records  which  we 
still  possess  of  those  early  times. 

Turning  to  these  documents,  we  ask  :  Is  the  Church, 
as  there  presented  to  us,  a  kingdom  with  a  visible  earthly 
sovereign,  whose  teaching  is  received  without  question 
by  clergy  (including  apostles)  and  laity  alike,  and 
whose  commands  are  unhesitatingly  obeyed  by  the 
members  of  the  Church  who  recognize  themselves  as 
his  subjects? 

If  this  be  so,  then  the  Roman  claims,  on  behalf  of  St. 
Peter  at  least,  are  substantiated.  If  this  be  not  so — if 
such  a  representation  be  inconsistent  with,  and  con- 
tradicted by,  the  earliest  Christian  documents — then  we 
must,  beyond  all  question,  declare  the  Petrine  claims  to 
be  unfounded  and  false. 

It  would,  in  this  case,  be  useless  to  speak  of  develop- 
ment. The  idea,  at  least,  must  be  unmistakably  present ; 
the  germ  must  be  found.  We  might  allow  that  it  would 
take  time  to  get  the  idea  into  the  universal  Christian 
conscience  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  actually  the 
representative  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  inheritor  of  all  his 
privileges  and  powers.  Even  that  is  a  concession  which 
we  could  hardly  be  required  to  make  if  the  Roman  sue- 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES.     71 

cession  of  St.  Peter  was  at  once  a  primitive  fact  and  a 
primitive  doctrine. 

But  even  if  we  allowed  that  the  idea  of  the  Roman 
primacy — of  the  Papal  sovereignty — might  remain  for  a 
season  somewhat  indefinite  in  certain  portions  of  the 
Christian  Church,  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  the  Petrine 
sovereignty,  if  it  were  a  reality,  should  not  be  acknow- 
ledged in  the  apostolic  Church.  The  apostles,  at  least, 
must  have  known  well  the  position  of  their  prince  in  the 
Church,  and  the  nature  of  their  own  relations  to  him. 
They  must  have  known  what  their  Master  meant  by  the 
words  which  He  spoke  to.  Peter;  and  they  must  have 
done  what  they  could  to  give  effect  to  His  ordinance 
and  purpose  in  the  Christian  body. 

Do  we  find,  then,  that  the  Church  was  a  kingdom  in 
which  Peter  was  recognized  as  king— the  visible  repre- 
sentative and  vicar  of  the  invisible  King?  Do  we  find 
that  in  the  teaching  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  in  the 
ruling  of  Christian  communities,  the  other  apostles 
derived  their  authority  from  him,  and  exercised  it  in 
subjection  to  him? 

To  ask  these  questions  is,  in  fact,  to  answer  them 
unhesitatingly  and  definitely.  It  is  hardly  possible  to 
imagine  anything  more  different  from  the  actual  facts 
of  the  case.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  find,  as  we 
should  expect,  that  St.  Peter  is  the  foremost  man  among 
the  twelve,  their  spokesman  and  mouthpiece,  as  during 
their  Master's  earthly  ministry;  but  of  any  absolute 
power  over  the  Christian  society,  of  any  superiority  in 
authority  to  the  other  apostles,  we  find  no  trace  what- 
ever. 

Take,  first,  St.   Peter's  sovereignty  over  the   Church. 


72       ST.  PETER  IN  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN 

\i  he  possessed  it,  he  knew  it,  and  so  did  his  fellow- 
apostles.  There  was  no  ecclesiastical  organization  to 
oppose  him  ;  no  privileges  of  other  Churches  and  bishops 
to  come  into  collision  with  his  claims ;  no  vested  rights, 
grown  up  in  evil  times  and  in  evil  places,  to  render  the 
exercise  of  his  sovereignty  difficult.  And  yet,  we  must 
repeat,  there  was  no  trace  of  this  power  over  the  king- 
dom of  God.  The  Church  was  not  a  society  in  which 
the  laity  had  to  do  nothing  but  to  obey ;  it  was  not  a 
state  in  which  every  subject  simply  listened  to  the  voice 
of  the  supreme  ruler^  and  fulfilled  his  commands.  It 
is  a  kingdom  ;  but  Christ  alone  is  its  King.  He  has 
His  officers  and  representatives  on  earth  ;  but  they  rule 
with  gentleness,  and  with  a  full  recognition  of  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  all  the  members.  They  have  official 
duties  to  perform,  which  belong  to  them  alone  ;  but  even 
in  the  administration  of  discipline,  they  do  not  ignore  the 
members  of  the  society  over  which  they  are  set. 

This  is,  indeed,  what  we  should  expect  when  we 
remember  our  Lord's  commands  to  them  respecting  the 
spirit  which  they  were  to  exercise  and  the  relations  which 
they  were  to  sustain  towards  those  who  should  believe 
in  Him,  their  brethren  in  the  Church.  "  Ye  know," 
He  had  said,  "  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise 
dominion  over  them,  and  they  that  are  great  exercise 
authority  upon  them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you  " 
(St.  Matt.  XX.  25). 

But,  it  may  be  urged,  that  He  adds,  "  Whosoever  will 
be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant ;  even  as 
the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to 
minister.''  And  surely  this  only  says  that  their  authority 
is  to  be  exercised  as  their  Master's  was  }      Yes,  but  as 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES.     73 

their  Master  exercised  it  upon  earth,  not  when  He  took 
to  Himself  His  great  power  and  reigned,  not  after  all 
power  had  been  given  to  Him  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 

But  turn  to  another  passage  :  "  Be  not  ye  called 
Rabbi,  for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ ;  and  all  ye  are 
brethren.  And  call  no  man  your  father  upon  the  earth, 
for  one  is  your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven.  Neither  be 
ye  called  masters  ;  for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ " 
(St.  Matt,  xxiii.  8-10). 

The  observance  of  these  injunctions  is  absolutely 
incompatible  with  the  Papal  view  of  St.  Peter's  position 
in  the  Church  ;  but  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  what  we 
read  of  the  actual  history  of  the  Church.  Neither  the 
apostles  collectively,  nor  any  one  of  their  number,  ever 
assumed  the  position  of  masters  of  the  Church.  They 
did  not  profess  to  have  dominion  over  the  faith  of 
Christ's  people :  they  were  helpers  of  their  joy.  And 
this  spirit  is  everywhere.  We  find  it  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  as  a  fact ;  it  is  enforced  in  the  Epistles  as  a 
principle. 

If  an  apostle  reminds  his  hearers  of  the  greatness  of 
his  office,  he  is  careful  to  add  that  it  is  not  his  own,  his 
*^  sufficiency  is  of  God,''  and  that  it  is  not  bestowed  for 
his  own  elevation.  "  We  preach  not  ourselves,  but 
Christ  Jesus  the  Lord."  If  God  has  given  them  privi- 
leges and  gifts  of  wondrous  excellence,  they  are  for  the 
benefit  of  the  body  of  which  they  are  members.  There 
is  but  one  Head,  their  ascended  Lord  within  the  veil ; 
and  they  "  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  one 
members  one  of  another." 

Even  when  discipline  is  to  be  exercised,  when  one  is 
to  be  bound  or  loosed,  to  have  the  doors  of  the  kingdom 


74     si:  peter  in  the  church,  and  in 

opened  for  him,  or  closed  against  him,  the  command  is 
given  by  no  autocrat  :  the  members  of  the  Church  are 
themselves  to  punish  the  guilty,  and  to  restore  th^, 
penitent.  "  Do  not  ye  judge  them  that  are  within  ?  "  says 
St.  Paul ;  and  the  sin  of  which  he  spoke  was  manifest. 
**  Therefore,'^  he  adds,  "  put  away  from  among  yourselves 
that  wicked  person."  And  afterwards,  when  the  sinful 
man  had  repented  of  his  misdeeds,  although  the  apostle 
required  this  proof  of  their  obedience  to  him  that  they 
would  restore  the  penitent  member,  and  forgive  him, 
and  comfort  him,  lest  perhaps  such  an  one  should  be 
swallowed  up  with  overmuch  sorrow,  yet  it  was  in  the 
tone  of  one  who  did  not  presume  to  be  their  master, 
but  was  their  brother  and  their  servant,  "  for  Jesus' 
sake." 

Nowhere  does  the  Church  appear  as  the  servant  of 
the  apostles,  still  less  as  the  servant  of  Peter.  It  is  the 
bride  and  body  of  Christ,  in  which  the  greatest  of  saints 
and  apostles  are  but  members.  It  is  the  kingdom  of 
God,  which  has  no  sovereign  but  Christ ;  and  He  has 
no  vicar  on  earth  but  the  Holy  Ghost.  Everywhere  we 
feel  that,  while  the  apostles  have  an  official  position  of 
great  importance  and  utility,  they  never  represent  them- 
selves as  the  masters  of  the  Church. 

Still  more  important,  however,  in  reference  to  our 
present  inquiry,  is  the  relation  of  St.  Peter  to  the  other 
apostles  ;  and  this  is  a  point  which  is  not  left  doubtful 
in  the  New  Testament  history. 

We  turn  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  we  study  the 
contents  of  that  precious  record  with  simplicity  and 
candour,  desiring  simply  to  know  what  it  contains.  If 
it  sets  Peter  over  the  other  apostles  as  their   superior 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES,     75 

and  sovereign,  it  must  be  good  and  right  for  us  to  see 
and  believe  this.  But  we  must  not  impatiently  read 
this  meaning  into  texts  which  teach  something  different, 
if  that  meaning  be  not  there. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  St.  Peter  undoubtedly 
occupies  a  position  of  great  prominence  and  importance, 
as  we  might  say,  of  priority  among  the  apostles.  This 
we  should  expect  to  find,  if  our  view  of  his  position  in 
the  Gospels  was  correct.  If  we  attempt  to  go  beyond 
this,  if  we  say  that  St.  Peter  was  the  pope  among  the 
apostles,  their  superior  from  whom  they  derived  authority 
and  power  to  teach  and  to  govern,  then  we  are  bound 
to  say  that  in  the  whole  book  there  is  not  a  trace  of  such 
a  doctrine. 

The  prominence  of  St.  Peter,  even  in  a  sense  his 
priority,  comes  out  alike  from  his  position  in  the 
Gospels,  from  the  words  addressed  to  him  by  our 
Lord,  and  from  his  relation  to  the  primitive  Church 
and  to  the  other  apostles.  But  he  is  no  sovereign  over 
a  subject  Church,  he  is  no  superior  having  dominion 
over  the  other  apostles. 

Even  if  he  is  described  by  our  Lord  as,  in  a  sense, 
the  foundation  of  the  Church,  yet  St.  Paul  speaks  in 
the  same  language  of  all  the  apostles.  Christ  gave  to 
him  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the 
power  to  bind  and  loose  ]  but  He  bestowed  these 
privileges  upon  him  as  the  representative  of  the  twelve. 
It  was  not  to  Peter  alone,  or  to  him  pre-eminently,  that 
He  said,  "  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
unto  them ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained." 

It   is   true  that  our  Lord   prayed  especially  for  St. 


76       ST,  PETER  IN  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN 

Peter  that  his  faith  might  not  fail,  but  He  did  so  as 
foreseeing  the  temptation  to  which  it  would  be  exposed ; 
and  He  also  prayed  for  all  His*  disciples,  that  they 
might  be  sanctified  for  the  work  which  He  had  given  them 
to  do  in  the  world, — a  work  to  which  He  sent  them 
as  the  Father  had  sent  Him,  a  work  in  the  execution  oi 
which  those  who  should  receive  and  hear  them  would 
also  be  receiving  and  hearing  Him  who  had  sent  them. 
Peter  was  at  the  same  time  commanded  to  strengthen 
his  brethren  ;  but  this  power  was  not  bestowed  upon 
him  alone.  St.  Paul  also  longed  to  impart  "  some 
spiritual  gift "  to  the  Romans,  **to  the  end  "that  they 
might  be  "established.'* 

Jesus  Christ  made  St.  Peter  a  shepherd  of  His  flock, 
commanding  him  to  feed  His  sheep  and  His  lambs; 
but  St.  Peter"  did  not  regard  himself  as  the  sole 
shepherd,  or  as  supreme  over  the  rest.  "  The  elders," 
he  says,  "  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder  .  .  .  feed 
the  flock  of  God,  which  is  amongst  you  .  .  .  neither 
as  being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  being  ensamples 
to  the  flock.  And  when  the  chief  Shepherd  shall 
appear  "...   He  is  not  Peter,  but  Peter's  Lord. 

Even  in  Peter's  expressed  readiness  to  die  for  His 
Master,  he  was  but  the  representative  of  the  rest : 
"  Likewise  also  said  all  the  disciples ;  "  and  in  his  want 
of  faith  and  in  his  cowardice  the  others  resembled  him  ; 
for  if  they  did  not  actually  deny  their  Lord,  it  was  because 
"they  all  forsook  Him  and  fled." 

Now  it  is  exactly  this  place  of  prominence,  but  not 
of  supremacy  or  authority,  which  we  find  occupied  by 
St.  Peter  in  the  apostolic  Church.  He  presides  at 
the  election   of  Matthias ;  but  it  is   certaijily  very  far 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES.     77 

from  the  truth  when  a  Roman  writer  says  that  ''  he  fills 
up  the  vacancy  in  the  apostolic  college."  No  doubt, 
this  is  what  he  would  have  done  if  the  Roman  theory 
were  the  true  one ;  but  this  he  certainly  does  not  do. 
We  have  said  he  presided;  and  this  is  not  actually  stated. 
Perhaps  there  was  no  president ;  but  he,  as  the  foremost 
man,  introduced  the  subject  which  they  were  convened 
to  consider,  the  death  of  Judas,  and  the  filling  up  of 
his  vacant  place;  and  indicated  to  the  others  what  was 
their  duty  on  the  occasion.  But,  when  that  was  done, 
all  were  on  an  equality.  ^'  They,''  the  apostles,  not 
Peter,  "appointed  two."  Of  these  two  one  was  chosen, 
not  by  the  so-called  prince  of  the  society,  but  by  the 
*'  lots  "  of  the  whole  number ;  and  "  the  lot  fell  upon 
Matthias,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven 
apostles."  All  is  simple  and  intelligible  in  the  view  of 
St.  Peter's  position  which  we  have  found  in  the  Gospels; 
it  is  absolutely  unintelligible  on  the  Roman  view. 

Again,  St.  Peter  was  appointed  to  proclaim  the  good 
message  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and,  so  to  speak,  to 
preside  at  the  inauguration  of  the  Christian  Church. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  use  language  stronger  than  this. 
Yet  this  by  no  means  represents  the  pretensions  put 
forth  on  his  behalf  by  those  who  claim  to  be  his  succes- 
sors. The  same  or  similar  remarks  may  be  made  on  his 
opening  the  door  of  the  Church  to  the  Gentiles  by  the 
reception  of  Cornelius. 

It  was  in  every  way  fitting  that  this  should  be  done  by 
St.  Peter.  He  was  the  leading  and  representative  man 
of  the  apostolic  body,  and  for  this  reason  he  was  fitly 
chosen  for  this  work.  He  had  preached  the  first  Chris- 
tian sermon  after  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 


78       ST.  PETER  IN  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN 

had  received  the  first  believers  into  the  fold  by  holy 
baptism ;  it  was  therefore  convenient  that  he  should  also 
receive  the  first-fruits  of  the  Gentiles.  Moreover,  it  was 
of  importance  that  an  act  implying  what  might  be  called 
a  new  point  of  departure  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
should  be  performed  by  one  who  could  be  under  no 
suspicion  in  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  act.  If  St. 
Paul  had  been  the  agent,  it  would  probably  have  excited 
opposition  and  resistance  as  having  only  or  chiefly  the 
sanction  of  the  Aposde  of  the  Gentiles,  whereas  it 
could  not  be  so  judged  as  being  done  by  the  Apostle  of 
the  circumcision. 

But  in  all  this  there  is  not  a  trace  of  dominion  over 
the  other  apostles,  or  of  their  subjection  to  him.  When 
a  question  of  discipline,  and  perhaps  even  of  doctrine, 
arises  with  reference  to  the  position  of  Gentiles  in  the 
Church,  it  is  discussed  and  decided  by  the  apostles  in 
common.  The  Council  of  Jerusalem  is,  however,  in 
various  ways,  of  such  importance  that  it  must  receive 
separate  consideration. 

Even  when  St.  Peter  takes  a  prominent  place  on 
some  occasion  of  importance  in  the  apostolic  Church,  it 
is  by  the  designation  of  the  others,  and  not  in  virtue  of 
any  inherent  authority  or  power  in  himself.  Thus  in 
Acts  viii.  14,  we  read  :  "When  the  apostles  which  were 
at  Jerusalem  heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word 
of  God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John."  This 
statement  harmonizes  perfectly  with  our  representation 
of  the  position  of  St.  Peter ;  but  it  differs  very  widely 
from  what  the  Roman  view  would  lead  us  to  expect. 

But  we  shall  obtain  the  best  illustration  of  the  in- 
dependence of    the  other  apostles — we  shall  see  how 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES,     79 

absurdly  untrue  it  is  to  say  that  they  depended  upon 
St.  Peter  for  their  power  and  authority — if  we  consider 
the  relation  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say,  it  is,  in  fact,  the  accurate  statement  of 
the  historical  fact,  when  we  assert  that  St.  Paul  regarded 
himself  as  being  on  a  perfect  equality  with  St.  Peter. 

We  do  not  lay  any  great  stress  upon  the  fact,  recorded 
by  St.  Paul  himself,  that  he  "withstood  him  [Peter]  to 
the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed.''  This  might 
not  be  altogether  incompatible  with  the  position  of  an 
inferior  who  remonstrated  with  a  superior  on  account  of 
his  want  of  moral  courage.  But  the  whole  attitude  of 
St.  Paul  tells  us  that  he  was  sensible  of  no  inferiority  in 
his  own  position,  and  conceded  no  superiority  to  that  of 
St.  Peter. 

His  apostleship  to  the  Gentiles  was  on  a  perfect 
equality,  in  his  own  view,  with  that  of  St.  Peter  to  the 
Jews.  "  The  Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision,"  he  says, 
"  was  committed  unto  me,  as  the  Gospel  of  the  circum- 
cision was  unto  Peter ;  for  He  that  wrought  effectually 
in  Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the  circumcision,  the 
same  w^as  mighty  in  me  toward  the  Gentiles."  This  is 
the  language  of  an  equal  speaking  of  an  equal. 

But,  it  has  been  said,  St.  Paul  evidently  did  recognize 
the  superiority  of  St.  Peter  by  his  coming  up  to  Jeru- 
salem to  "see"  him — or  whatever  the  exact  force  of 
the  word  (/(rro^Jitra/)  may  be  (Gal.  i.  18) — "a  word  used," 
says  St.  Chrysostom,  "by  those  who  go  to  see  great  and 
famous  cities."  No  doubt  St.  Paul  did  recognise  the 
eminence  of  St.  Peter,  and  of  others  besides  him,  in  the 
early  Church.  It  was  of  importance  that  he  should  do 
so.     He  was  one  "  born  out  of  due  time,"  and  his  claims 


■ 


8o       ST.  PETER  IN  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN 

were  disputed.  He  must  make  it  clear  that  he  had  not 
"  run  in  vain/* 

Seldom  was  there  a  time  when  one  apostle  would  be 
under  a  greater  temptation  to  submit  himself  to  others  who 
might  be  of  authority,  and  by  whose  support  he  might 
strengthen  his  own.  What  an  opportunity  for  St.  Paul, 
to  be  able  to  go  back  and  tell  those  who  had  resisted 
him  that  he  had  satisfied  the  prince  of  the  apostles  of  his 
having  received  a  valid  call  from  Christ ;  that  St.  Peter 
had  decided  that  his  doctrine  was  sound,  and  his  disci- 
plinary rules  for  the  Gentiles  were  good  ;  so  that  he  could 
now  come  back  to  them  with  all  the  power  of  the  chief 
of  the  apostles  to  enforce  his  teaching  and  government ! 

If  the  Roman  theory  were  true,  St.  Paul  must  have 
done  something  like  this ;  but  he  does  nothing  of  the 
sort.  He  goes  indeed  to  see  the  *^  pillar  Apostles : '' 
James,  the  bishop  of  the  first  metropolis  of  the  Christian 
world ;  Cephas,  who  was  the  foremost  of  the  twelve  ;  and 
John,  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  But  here  he  does 
not  give  the  first  place  to  Peter,  but  to  James,  who  pre- 
sided over  the  mother  Church.  We  do  not  attach  over- 
whelming importance  to  this  circumstance,  although  we 
shall  see  hereafter  that  it  is  by  no  means  without  signi- 
ficance;"^ but  the  Roman  controversialists  are  never 
weary  of  referring  to  every  passage  in  which  Peter  is  the 
first  named. 

Well,  but  let  us  grant  St.  Paul  went  up  particularly  to 
see  Peter.  This  statement  might  produce  a  presumption 
that  he  felt  the  necessity,  in  some  w^ay,  of  giving  an 
account  of  himself  and  his  work  to  St.  Peter,  or  of 
obtaining  some  increase  of  authority  or  influence  by  his 
*  See  in  the  next  chapter. 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES.     8i 

means.  If  such  a  notion  were  for  a  moment  entertained, 
it  must  speedily  be  dispelled  by  St.  Paul's  own  words. 

What  does  he  say  of  his  apostolic  authority  ?  **  Paul  an 
apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ, 
and  God  the  Father.''  It  is  thus  that  he  begins  the  very 
epistle  in  which  he  speaics  of  his  visit  to  Peter ;  and  the 
same  sentiment  is  elsewhere  expressed  in  similar  language. 

What  does  he  think  of  his  own  power  to  teach  and  to 
preach  in  the  Church  of  God?  Did  he  derive  it,  or  any 
part  of  it,  or  gain  any  additional  authority  for  his  work, 
from  the  support  of  the  other  apostles,  even  the  very 
chief  of  them  ?  On  this  point  he  is  equally  explicit.  As 
for  his  gospel,  he  says  :  "  I  neither  received  it  of  man, 
neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ.  .  .  .  Neither  went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  them 
which  were  apostles  before  me ;  .  .  .  and  was  unknown 
by  face  unto  the  churches  of  Judea"  (Gal.  i.  12,  17,  22). 

It  is  true  he  went  up  afterwards,  when  his  teaching 
was  called  in  question  ;  but  this  time  not  specially  ''to 
see  Peter,"  but  "  to  them  which  were  of  reputation,"  parti- 
cularly, no  doubt,  to  the  three  already  named  ;  but  not 
in  any  way  as  acknowledging  their  superior  authority,  or 
as  desiring  from  them  any  power  or  knowledge  which 
he  did  not  already  possess.  ''They,"  he  says,  ''who 
seemed  to  be  somewhat,  in  conference  added  nothing  to 
me ; "  and  "  whatsoever  they  were,"  he  says,  "  it  maketh 
no  matter  to  me  "  (Gal.  ii.  6). 

These  are,  indeed,  very  remarkable  words.  We  can 
quite  understand  that  the  partizans  of  Peter  should 
resent  the  boldness  and  independence  of  an  apostle  who 
could  not  claim  to  have  been  the  personal  friend  and 
companion  of  the  Lord.     But  there  is  no  hint  anywhere 

F 


82      ST.  PETER  TV  THE  CHURCH,  AND  IN 

that  St.  Peter  himself  resented  the  attitude  of  St.  Paul, 
or  claimed  to  give  him  the  slightest  direction  in  his 
teaching  or  work ;  and  St.  Paul's  own  tone  is  uniform 
throughout.  There  is  not  a  single  phrase  or  word  in 
the  whole  of  his  writings  which  indicates  his  conscious- 
ness of  dependence  upon  St.  Peter  or  any  other  apostle. 
There  is  not  a  syllable  in  St.  Peter's  writings  which  ex- 
presses or  implies  any  pretension  of  superiority  over  the 
other  apostles.  There  is  only  one  way  of  accounting 
for  this  undeniable  fact — no  such  power  belonged  to  St. 
Peter,  no  such  power  was  ever  thought  of  by  him  or  by 
his  colleagues.  If  it  had  been,  we  could  not  have  missed 
some  trace  of  it  in  the  New  Testament. 

There  is  one  other  passage  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul 
in  which  the  name  of  Peter  is  brought  forward ;  but  in 
that  passage  there  is  as  little  evidence  of  the  superiority 
of  the  Apostle  of  the  circumcision  as  in  the  one  which 
we  have  examined.  '^  Every  one  of  you  saith,"  St.  Paul 
complains  to  the  Corinthians  (i,  i.  12),  *' I  am  of  Paul, 
and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ." 
These  parties  were  dividing  and  distracting  the  Church ; 
and  St.  Paul  protested  against  them,  and  denounced  the 
spirit  out  of  which  they  had  arisen. 

There  was  no  difficulty  in  separating  the  name  of 
Christ  from  the  other  names.  He  alone  was  crucified 
for  them.  But  in  regard  to  the  others  there  is  no 
distinction  made  between  them.  Cephas  is  no  more 
the  vicar  of  Christ  than  Paul  or  Apollos.  If  we  imagine 
a  Roman  Catholic  bishop  using  language  of  this  kind 
respecting  himself  and  another  bishop  and  the  Pope, 
we  shall  see  how  totally  different  is  the  modern  concep- 
tion of  the  primacy  from  any  position  which  was  assigned 


RELATION  TO  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES.     Zi 

to  St.  Peter  in  the  early  Church  \  and  yet,  if  the  modern 
Roman  theory  be  true,  St.  Peter  was  to  the  rest  of  the 
apostles,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  that  which  the  Pope 
now  is  to  the  bishops  of  his  communion. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  New  Testament,  at  least, 
knows  nothing  of  any  subjection  of  the  other  apostles 
to  St.  Peter,  and  even  less,  if  that  were  possible,  of  their 
being  merely  his  representatives  and  officials.  At  the 
very  utmost,  he  is  but  the  primus  inter  pares ^  the  first 
among  equals.  But  we  must  remember  that  the  claim 
which  is  put  forth  on  his  behalf,  and  on  behalf  of  the 
Roman  See,  is  not  that  a  primacy  of  power  was  accorded 
by  the  Church  to  St.  Peter  and  his  successors,  but  that 
they  possess  it  by  divine  right,  as  the  gift  of  Christ  to 
the  first  of  their  line,  the  prince  of  the  apostles. 

It  would  be  of  no  avail  to  show  that  these  powers 
were  subsequently  possessed,  acknowledged,  exercised ; 
however  soon  this  may  have  come  to  pass,  and  it  did 
not  happen  at  once,  it  could  not  prove  the  original  en- 
dowment. The  endeavour  to  prove  the  Petrine  and  the 
Papal  sovereignty  as  a  divine  ordinance  existing  from 
the  beginning  entirely  fails.  How  soon  this  idea  appears, 
and  under  what  forms,  we  may  perceive  hereafter.  The 
process  of  usurpation  was  gradual  and  slow ;  and  we  shall, 
perhaps,  be  able  to  indicate  some  of  the  circumstances 
which  made  it  possible. 

Before  leaving  the  ground  of  Scripture,  however,  we 
must  examine  carefully  the  account  given  of  the  first 
Christian  Council  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  see  what  light  is 
thrown  upon  the  position  of  St.  Peter  by  its  transactions, 
and  what  was  thought  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  and 
its  bishop  in  those  early  days. 


(     84    ) 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ST.  PETER,  ST.  JAMES,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
JERUSALEM. 

St.  James  and  Jerusalem — Romans  ignore  the  importance  of  this  argu 
ment — The  Council — Significance  of  the  very  holding  of  a  council — 
The  question  not  referred  to  Peter,  but  to  the  apostles  and  elders — 
St.  Peter  the  foremost  speaker,  not  the  president — Position  of  St. 
James  at  Jerusalem  and  in  the  Church — The  Church  of  Jerusalem — 
Testimony  of  Eusebius — Hegesippus — Clement — Inferences  from 
these  testimonies — Manner  in  which  St.  Peter  is  referred  to — Growth 
of  the  Petrine  legend. 

In  considering  the  relation  of  St.  Peter  to  the  other 
apostles,  we  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the  position 
of  St.  James.  But  the  importance  of  this  apostolic  man, 
and  of  the  Church  over  which  he  presided,  renders  it 
necessary  to  give  more  particular  attention,  not  merely  to 
the  transactions  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  but  to  the 
whole  circumstances  of  that  Church  and  its  bishop. 

It  can  hardly  be  said  that  this  subject  has  been  ignored, 
or  altogether  neglected ;  yet  its  real  importance  has 
undoubtedly  been  slurred  over  by  Roman  controversial- 
ists, and  has  hardly  been  made  sufficiently  prominent  by 
their  antagonists.  An  able  Roman  writer,  whom  we  have 
already  quoted,  dismisses  the  subject  in  the  following 
manner: — ^'Take,  for  instance,  that  favourite  objec- 
tion to  St.  Peter's  claim  which  all  adversaries  of  the  Holy 


ST.  PETER  AND  ST.  JAMES.  85 

See  are  obliged  to  use  for  want  of  better,  that  in  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem  St.  James  the  apostle  spoke  after 
St.  Peter,  and  used  the  word  '  I  judge ; '  evidently,  they 
say,  taking  the  post  of  honour  and  giving  judgment.  It 
would  be  a  waste  of  time  seriously  to  refute  this  triviality. 
I  mention  it  merely  to  show  what  real  and  solid  weight  the 
scene  [on  the  day  of  Pentecost]  we  are  now  considering 
has  when  put  by  the  side  of  this  sophistry.  St.  James 
spoke  last,  therefore  was  president;  but  if  he  had  spoken 
first,  as  St.  Peter  did,  they  would  have  said  that  the  first 
place  was  the  post  of  honour.  Again,  he  used  the  word 
*  I  judge.'  Well,  brethren,  I  think  that  any  one  of  the 
bishops  in  the  Vatican  Council  would  have  had  no 
difficulty  in  saying,  I  judge  that  the  time  is  opportune 
or  inopportune  for  defining  the  infaUibility  of  the  Pope. 
Lastly,  if  such  a  passage  as  this  proves  anything  at  all, 
it  would  prove  that  St.  James  had  precedence  over  St 
Peter.  Is  Christendom  prepared  to  accept  this  conclu- 
sion on  the  strength  of  this  argument?" 

This  is  every  word  which  is  given  to  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem,  the  first  of  a  long  series  in  the  Christian 
Church,  by  a  wTiter  who  is  considering  *'St.  Peter's 
Mission  as  revealed  in  Holy  Writ,"  and  who  devotes 
many  pages  to  texts,  the  application  of  which  to  this 
subject,  in  our  view,  involves  both  ^^  triviality ''  and 
*' sophistry."  Do  we  suppose,  then,  that  this  writer  was 
consciously  evading  a  difficulty — that  he  w^as  deliberately 
using  a  controversial  and  rhetorical  trick  by  thus  slurring 
over  that  which  we  regard  as  an  important  part  of  the 
evidence  ?  By  no  means.  He  reads  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  under  the  light  of  the  Petrine  and  Papal  supre- 
macy; and  finds  everything  interesting  and  important 


86  ST.  PETER,  ST.  JAMES,  AND 

which  illustrates  that  theory,  and  all  trivial  and  sophis- 
tical which  is  brought  forward  as  being  at  variance 
with  it. 

This  is,  of  course,  quite  natural ;  but  we  must,  on  our 
part,  beware  of  being  thus  betrayed  into  surrendering 
positions  of  importance.  And  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying  that  the  position  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  in 
the  apostolic  Church,  and  that  of  St.  James  its  bishop, 
have  received  an  amount  of  consideration  not  at  all 
proportioned  to  their  importance,  whether  we  consider 
the  Scripture  texts  which  refer  to  the  subject,  or  the 
remarkable  testimonies  of  early  Christian  writers  which 
have  in  a  great  degree  been  overlooked  or  neglected. 

"  If  such  a  passage  proves  anything  at  all,  it  would 
prove  that  St.  James  had  precedence  over  St.  Peter,'*  are 
the  words  of  the  Roman  writer  just  quoted.  The  word 
** precedence"  is  ambiguous.  Neither  St.  Peter  nor  St. 
James  had  any  primacy  of  jurisdiction — any  power  or 
authority  which  was  not  possessed  by  the  other  apostles. 
St.  Peter  was  evidently  the  foremost  man  among  the 
apostles  throughout  his  life.  At  Jerusalem,  however, 
whatever  *' precedence  "  was  possessed  by  any  apostle 
apparently  did  belong  to  St.  James  ;  and  this  is  not  only 
made  probable  by  the  narrative  of  the  Council,  but  by 
other  circumstances  to  which  we  shall  draw  attention. 
In  short,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  make  out  a  case  for 
St.  James,  and  not  St.  Peter,  being  the  primate  of  the 
Christian  Church  j  although  not  in  the  later  sense  of 
the  word,  which  certainly  belonged  to  no  one  at  that 
period  in  the  Church's  history. 

First,  then,  we  will  draw  attention  to  the  history  of 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem;  and  then,  still  more  particu- 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM,  ?>7 

larly,  to  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  and  of  earlier  writers 
quoted  by  him. 

Now,  it  is  obvious  to  remark,  first  of  all,  that  the  very 
fact  of  a  council  being  held  at  all,  in  order  to  decide 
the  position  of  Gentiles  in  the  Christian  Church,  is  a 
strong  argument  against  the  supreme  teaching  power  of 
any  particular  apostle.  If  Christ  had  given  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  the  Church  to  teach  it  and  to  lead  it  into 
all  truth,  then  we  could  understand  that  representative 
members  should  come  together,  endowed  with  various 
gifts,  and,  after  mutual  consultation,  should  declare,  '*  It 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us  "  that  these 
rules  should  be  promulgated.  But  it  does  not  seem  at 
all  easy  to  reconcile  this  conduct  with  the  theory  that 
the  plenitude  of  teaching  power  resided  in  St.  Peter, 
and  was  by  him  communicated  to  the  other  apostles 
and  to  the  Church.  Why,  in  that  case,  hold  a  council 
at  all  ?  Why  should  not  St.  Peter  stand  up,  as  he  did 
when  preaching  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  declare  the 
mind  of  Christ  and  of  the  Spirit?  Roman  Catholics  ask 
us  to  use  the  argument  from  common  sense.  They  say 
w^e  are  promised  certain  guidance  in  religious  difficulties. 
They  declare  that  this  promise  would  not  really  be  ful- 
filled if  there  were  no  unerring  authority  to  which  we 
could  appeal.  We  apply  their  assumptions  and  their 
theory  to  the  present  case  :  and  they  absolutely  break 
down.  Here  were  very  serious  questions  arising  in  the 
Church  with  reference  to  the  duties  and  obligations  of 
Gentile  converts.  The  settlement  of  them  caused  much 
anxiety  to  the  apostles,  not  here  only,  but  in  many 
other  parts  of  the  world.  It  would  even  appear  that 
they  were  not  finally  set  at  rest  by  these  solemn   apos- 


88  S7\  PETER,  ST,  JAMES,  AND 

tolic  decisions  and  utterances.  This  is  certainly  not 
what  we  should  expect.  But  God  is  wiser  than  we  are. 
It  is  thus  by  doubts  and  difficulties  and  questions  and 
conflicts  that  He  educates  and  trains  His  Church  ;  and 
not  by  settHng  every  controversy  beforehand,  or  at 
once.  If,  however,  this  state  of  things  is  not  what  we 
should  expect  generally,  it  is  still  less  what  we  should 
look  for  on  the  Roman  theory  of  the  Petrine  position 
and  claims.  We  should  have  expected  that  St.  Peter 
would  pronounce  definitely  on  the  subject.  What  do 
we  find? 

We  find,  in  the  first  place,  what  the  passages  of 
Scripture  already  examined  would  quite  prepare  us  for : 
that  St.  Peter  is  the  foremost  to  speak,  and  the  most 
prominent  man  at  the  Council.  We  also  find,  beyond 
all  question,  that  he  is  not  the  president,  and  that  it  is 
not  by  his  authority  that  the  decisions  of  the  Council 
are  issued  to  the  Church. 

There  was,  in  fact,  a  good  deal  of  discussion,  or,  as 
the  sacred  writer  says,  "much  disputing."  It  was  not 
necessary  to  report  the  whole  proceedings.  It  is 
mentioned  that  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas  gave  an 
account  of  their  work ;  such,  probably,  as  is  contained 
in  other  parts  of  the  book.  A  report,  probably  con- 
densed, is  given  of  St.  Peter's  speech ;  afterwards  a 
much  longer  report  of  St.  James's  speech.  But  St. 
Peter  did  not  in  any  way  settle  the  particular  questions 
on  which  the  Council  had  to  decide.  God  had  chosen 
him  *'  that  the  Gentiles  by "  his  "  mouth  should  hear 
the  word  of  the  Gospel  and  believe ; "  and  he  could  tell 
what  the  mind  of  God  was  in  sending  him  to  that  work, 
and  what  the  Gospel  was  which  he  had  preached  to  the 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM,  89 

Gentiles.  These  were  important  elements  in  the  dis- 
cussion ;  and  he  was  able  to  lay  down  the  principle 
that  God  had  ''put  no  difference  between"  them,  and 
that  there  should  not  be  laid  upon  these  converts  a 
yoke  which  they  and  their  fathers  had  been  unable  to 
bear.  But  the  particular  details  were  evidently  discussed 
by  the  assembly,  and  it  was  St.  James  who,  as  the  mouth- 
piece of  the  Council,  declared  its  decisions.  The  words 
''  I  judge,"  or  ''  I  decide,''  are  simply  the  words  of  the 
president,  of  one  who,  at  that  time  and  on  that  occasion, 
was  primus  inter  pares.  There  was,  apparently,  no 
thought  of  superiority  or  pre-eminence  in  the  mind  of 
any  one,  in  any  other  sense  of  the  words. 

That  which  follows  is  no  less  remarkable.  The 
decisions  of  the  Council  have  been  arrived  at.  The 
president  has  pronounced  them,  as  his  *'  sentence  "  and 
the  sentence  of  the  assembly,  without  a  dissentient 
voice  being  heard.  But  they  must  now  be  promulgated. 
And  how  is  this  done?  Surely,  if  St.  Peter  be  in  any 
sense  the  necessary  head  of  the  apostolic  college,  if 
his  primacy  be  anything  beyond  one  of  honour,  we  had 
almost  said  of  accident,  then  he  must  be  the  organ  for 
communicating  these  decisions  to  the  universal  Church. 
But  nothing  of  the  kind  takes  place.  This  is  what  we 
read,  "  Then  pleased  it  the  apostles  and  elders  with 
the  whole  Church  "  to  give  effect  to  the  decisions  ;  "  and 
they  wrote  letters  by  them  after  this  manner,  The 
apostles  and  elders  and  brethren  send  greeting,"  and 
further  on,  "  It  seemed  good  unto  us  being  assembled 
with  one  accord,"  and  again,  "  It  seemed  good  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us."  Now,  we  fancy,  these  state- 
ments will  seem   the  very  reverse  of  trivial  to  one  w^ho 


90  ST.  PETER,  ST  JAMES,  AND 

considers  the  whole  history  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  the  particular  crisis  to  which  they  refer ;  and  as 
regards  ''  sophistry/'  although  we  can  easily  imagine 
arguments  by  which  it  might  be  attempted  to  reconcile 
the  transactions  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  with  the 
sovereignty  of  St.  Peter,  it  must  be  clear  to  any  one 
that  considerable  ingenuity  must  be  employed  in  order 
to  evade  what  would  appear  to  be  the  real  force  of  the 
narrative. 

We  have  said,  we  can  imagine  arguments  being 
employed  in  order  to  reconcile  St.  Peter's  alleged 
primacy  of  jurisdiction  with  the  place  occupied  by 
himself  and  St.  James  at  this  Council,  and  the  manner 
of  promulgating  its  decrees.  But  we  cannot  even 
imagine  an  argument  which  would,  with  any  degree  of 
probability,  make  the  position  of  St.  Peter  compatible 
with  that  which  is  by  Romans  assigned  to  him  as  the 
supreme  teacher  and  ruler  in  the  Christian  Church. 

We  have  already  drawn  attention  to  the  prominence 
of  St.  James  in  the  Church  at  this  time.  He  is  one  of 
the  three,  and  he  is  the  first  mentioned  of  the  three, 
to  whom  St.  Paul  has  recourse  on  the  occasion  of  his 
second  visit  to  Jerusalem,  when  his  authority  was  called 
in  question.  On  his  first  visit  he  went  to  see  Peter. 
At  that  time  St.  James  was  not,  perhaps,  bishop  of  the 
metropolis  of  the  Church.  Peter,  as  the  foremost  man 
and  representative  of  the  twelve,  was  the  person  to  whom 
he  naturally  had  recourse.  But  now  James  had  been 
associated  with  the  very  foremost  of  the  apostles ;  ap- 
parently taking  the  place,  among  the  three  first  of  the 
sacred  college,  of  that  one,  now  slain  with  the  sword, 
who  had  borne  his  name. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM,  91 

Not  only  had  he  taken  the  place  of  James  the  son 
of  Zebedee  ;  but  apparently,  in  some  sense,  he  had 
become  more  prominent  than  Peter.  St.  Paul,  as  we 
have  seen,  mentions  him  first.  When  St.  Peter  was 
delivered  from  prison  by  the  angel  and  was  restored  to 
the  disciples,  before  he  left  Jerusalem  he  told  them, 
"  Go,  show  these  things  unto  James  and  to  the  brethren." 
James  was  now  the  centre  of  Christian  life  and  action 
at  Jerusalem,  perhaps  we  might  say,  beyond  Jerusalem. 
Do  we  find  any  way  of  accounting  for  these  facts  ?  We 
think  that  there  is  testimony  on  the  subject  which  has 
not  been  sufficiently  considered,  and  we  wish  to  draw 
attention  to  it,  as  it  bears  upon  the  position  of  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  and  St.  James's  presidency  over 
it 

It  must  often  have  seemed  remarkable  to  stiidents  of 
Church  history  that,  for  a  time,  Jerusalem  should  have 
been  in  the  patriarchate  of  Csesarea.  The  explanation 
of  the  difficulty  is  found  in  the  destruction  of  the  city 
by  Titus,  a.d.  70.  Even  when  it  was  rebuilt,  its  old 
name  had  passed  away,  and  it  was  known  only  as  MX\2l 
Capitolina.  By  this  name  it  is  designated  in  the  seventh 
Canon  of  Nicaea.  Jerusalem,  therefore,  had  no  con- 
tinuous history  ;  and  we  must  go  back  to  the  records 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  scanty  testimonies  of 
the  first  ages  preserved  by  Eusebius,  if  we  would  under- 
stand its  importance  in  primitive  times. 

That  Jerusalem  was  originally  the  metropolis  of 
Christendom  needs  no  proof;  that  Antioch,  the  capital 
of  Syria,  and  then  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  world,  should 
have  succeeded  to  the  honour,  was  quite  natural.  And 
it  is  not  wonderful  that,  when  the  great  Church  of  Rome, 


92  ST.  PETER,  ST.  JAMES,  AND 

the  mistress  of  the  world,  had  claimed  to  be  the  head  of 
Christendom,  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter 
in  that  city  should  lead  to  the  assertion  of  St.  Peter's 
primacy  over  the  Church,  of  his  episcopate  first  at 
Antioch  and  then  at  Rome,  and  finally  to  the  statement 
that  he  had  transmitted  his  jurisdiction  to  the  bishops  of 
the  metropolis.  It  was  quite  possible  for  the  legend  to 
take  this  form  under  the  circumstances.  It  was  not 
possible  that  it  should  climb  a  step  higher ;  it  could  not 
place  St.  Peter  on  the  throne  of  Jerusalem,  as  it  would 
naturally  have  done  :  history,  stern  and  immovable,  stood 
in  the  way. 

And  yet  this  would  have  been  not  only  the  teaching 
of  legend  but  the  actual  truth  of  history,  if  St.  Peter  had 
been,  in  the  Roman  sense,  or  in  anything  like  the  Roman 
sense,  the  primate  of  the  whole  Christian  Church.  It 
is  truly  absurd  to  say  that  St.  James  was  attached  to 
the  local  Church  of  Jerusalem,  because  St.  Peter  was 
employed  as  an  apostle  in  the  work  of  the  whole 
Church,  unless  the  same  reason  can  be  given  for  his  not 
occupying  any  other  see.  Such  a  statement  would  be 
perfectly  true,  as  far  as  it  goes,  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul 
as  well.  But  how,  then,  came  he  to  be  Bishop  of 
Antioch  for  seven  years,  and  then  for  twenty-five  years 
Bishop  of  Rome  ?  The  thing  is  almost  impossible ; 
utterly  improbable,  and  incapable  of  proof.  St.  Peter 
was  the  head  of  the  circumcision,  as  St.  Paul  was  the 
head  of  the  uncircumcision ;  but  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other  was  a  diocesan  bishop.  Of  such  a  position  as 
belonging  to  St.  Peter  the  early  Church  knew  nothing. 
We  shall  presently  show  this  still  more  clearly. 

Let  us  see  what  information  we  may  obtain  respecting 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM.  93 

St.  James,  and  his  appointment  to  be  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  his  position  as  such.  Apart  from  the  New 
Testament,  our  chief,  if  not  our  only  authority,  is  Euse- 
bius,  who  depends  mainly,  although  not  exclusively,  upon 
the  authority  of  Hegesippus,  a  writer  of  the  second  half 
of  the  second  century.  We  will  bring  the  principal  pas- 
sages which  bear  upon  the  subject  together,  and,  placing 
them  before  us,  ask  what  they  teach  us. 

*' James,  called  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  because  he  is 
also  called  the  son  of  Joseph,  .  .  .  whom  the  ancients, 
on  account  of  the  excellence  of  his  virtue,  surnamed  the 
Just,  was  the  first  that  received  the  episcopate  of  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem.  But  Clement  [of  Alexandria],  in 
the  sixth  book   of  his  Institutions,  represents  it  thus  : 

*  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  after  the  ascension  of  our 
Saviour,  though  they  had  been  preferred  by  our  Lord, 
did  not  contend  for  the  honour,  but  chose  James  the 
Just  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem.""^  In  another  placet  he 
says :  ^*  Hegesippus,  also,  who  flourished  nearest  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  in  the  fifth  book  of  his  Commen- 
taries,  gives  the  most  accurate  account  of  him,   thus  : 

*  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who,  as  there  were 
many  of  this  name,  was  surnamed  the  Just  by  all,  from 
the  days  of  our  Lord  until  now,  received  the  government 
of  the  Church  [mark  this  expression]  with  the  apostles.'  " 

Again,  J  "  James  being  the  first  that  received  the 
dignity  of  the  episcopate  at  Jerusalem  from  our  Saviour 
Himself,  as  the  Sacred  Scriptures  show  that  he  was 
generally  called  the  brother  of  Christ ;  this  see,  which 
has  been  preserved  until  the  present  times,  has  ever  been 
held  in  veneration  by  the  brethren  that  have  followed  in 
*  Euseb.,  Ecc.  Hist,  ii.  i.         f  Ibid.,  ii.  23.         %  Ibid.,  vii.  19. 


94  ST,  PETER,  ST.  JAMES,  AND 

the  succession  there."  This  testimony,  we  remark  in 
passing,  is  the  more  remarkable  as  coming  from  Eusebius 
who  was  himself  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  to  which  patriar- 
chate Jerusalem  then  belonged. 

On  the  importance  of  the  position  we  cite  one  other 
extract  \^  *' The  Clmrch  of  Jerusalem,  after  Hymenaeus, 
was  under  the  episcopal  care  of  Zabdas,  and  he  not  long 
after  dying,  Hermon  was  the  last  before  the  persecution 
of  our  day,  the  same  that  now  holds  the  apostolic  chair 
preserved  there  to  the  present. ^^ 

There  is  one  question  of  deep  interest,  not  wholly  un- 
connected with  the  historical  question,  to  which  we  can 
but  briefly  refer.  Was  this  James  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles  ?  Was  he,  in  other  words,  identical  with  James 
the  Less  ?  It  is  a  difficult  question  ;  but  we  incline  to 
the  opinion  that,  while  James  the  son  of  Alphseus  was 
perhaps  the  cousin  of  our  Lord,  this  James,  **  the  son 
of  Joseph,"  was  legally  the  Lord's  brother  ;  one  of  those 
who  did  not  believe  in  Him  before  His  death,  and  who 
was  converted,  as  Eusebius  tells  us,  by  the  appearance 
of  the  risen  Saviour  to  him,  which  is  recorded  by  St. 
Paul.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  at  least,  that  it  was  James 
of  Jerusalem  to  whom  the  appearance  of  our  Lord 
recorded  by  St.  Paul  was  granted.  And  the  whole  theory 
here  stated  has,  it  appears,  fewer  difficulties  than  any 
other.  It  has  been  adopted,  among  others,  by  Rothe, 
Alford,  Friedrich,  and  Lightfoot. 

It  would  appear  that  this  relationship  to  our  Lord 

formed  one  reason  for  the  election  of  St.  James  to  this 

office ;  and  this  is  curiously  confirmed  by  what  we  are 

told  of  the  appointment  of  his  successor.     "After  the 

*  Euseb.,  Ecc.Hist.i  vii.  32. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM,  95 

martyrdom  of  James,"  says  Eusebius/  ''and  the  capture 
of  Jerusalem,  which  immediately  followed,  it  is  reported 
that  those  of  the  apostles  and  the  disciples  of  our  Lord 
that  were  yet  surviving  came  together  from  all  parts 
with  those  that  were  related  to  our  Lord  according  to 
the  flesh  ;  for  the  greater  part  of  them  were  yet  living. 
These  consulted  together,  to  determine  whom  it  was 
proper  to  pronounce  worthy  of  being  the  successor  of 
James.  They  all  unanimously  declared  Simeon,  the  son 
of  Clopas,  of  whom  mention  is  made  in  the  sacred 
volume,  as  worthy  of  the  episcopal  seat  there.  They 
say  he  was  the  cousin  of  our  Saviour,  for  Hegesippus 
asserts  that  Clopas  was  the  brother  of  Joseph." 

If  we  had  only  these  testimonies,  we  should,  without 
much  hesitation,  draw  the  following  inferences : — (i.) 
That  Jerusalem,  and  not  Rome,  was  the  ''  apostoHc 
see;"  (2.)  That  James,  and  not  Peter,  was  primate  of 
the  Church,  if  there  was  a  primate ;  and  (3.)  That  what- 
ever might  be  true  of  the  prominence  and  importance  of 
St.  Peter  among  the  apostles,  Eusebius  knew  nothing  of 
any  primacy,  in  anything  like  the  later  sense  of  the 
word,  as  belonging  to  him.  For  let  it  be  observed, 
Eusebius  distinctly  speaks  of  the  see  of  Jerusalem 
as  ''  the  apostolic  chair,"  and  of  the  great  honour 
assigned  to  it  in  the  Church.  Then  he  not  only 
gives  no  hint  of  any  superiority  on  the  part  of 
St.  Peter,  but  he  says  distinctly  that  the  three  great 
apostles  who  had  been  the  most  intimately  connected 
with  our  Lord  during  His  ministry,  did  not  contend  for 
honour  (po^ni),  but  chose  James  the  Just  as  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem — actually  assigning  to  him  that  position  which 
*  Euseb.,  Ecc,  Hist,,  iii.  1 1. 


96  ST.  PETER,  ST.   JAMES,  AND 

would  seem  to  be  the  most  honourable,  the  presidency 
of  the  metropohs  of  the  Christian  Church. 

And  it  was  not  this  mere  local  office  that  was  bestowed 
upon  him,  but  another  privilege  which  gave  completeness, 
so  to  speak,  and  added  dignity  to  his  position.  It  is 
Clement  who  speaks  of  his  being  made  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  earlier  testimony  of  Hegesippus  is  somewhat 
different,  and  very  remarkable.  According  to  him,  St. 
James  "received  the  government  of  the  Church  with  the 
apostles;"  and  apparently  a  very  prominent  place  in 
that  government  by  being  made  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  so 
that  he  was  the  president  of  the  first  Council  and  the 
human  centre  of  Christian  life  and  work  throughout  the 
world. 

Let  it  be  observed  that  these  conclusions  claim  for  St. 
James  no  superiority  over  any  other  apostle,  or  any  other 
Christian  bishop;  but  simply  that,  in  the  manner  described, 
he  did  come  to  occupy  a  position  similar  to  that  of  St. 
Peter  in  the  Christian  society.  If  it  be  asked  how  it 
was  that  this  lofty  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem 
came  to  be  forgotten,  the  answer  has  already  been  given. 
Jerusalem  utterly  perished.  Antioch,  the  centre  of 
Gentile  Christianity  and  the  capital  of  Syria,  became  the 
principal  patriarchal  see  of  Asia  ;  Rome  as  naturally  came 
to  be  regarded  as  the  capital  of  the  Christian  world. "^ 

*  That  the  Petrine  legend  grew  up,  and  his  name  became  con- 
nected with  Antioch  and  Rome  on  account  of  the  importance  of 
those  cities,  is  confirmed  by  another  circumstance.  In  assigning 
their  order  of  priority  to  the  various  patriarchates,  the  first  place 
was  given  to  Rome,  the  second  to  Alexandria^  and  the  third  to 
Antioch.  Why  was  this  ?  St.  Peter,  according  to  the  legend,  was 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  not  of  Alexandria.     But  Alexandria  was  the 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM.  97 

But  it  was  long  before  St.  Peter  was  spoken  of  as  Bishop 
either  of  Rome  or  of  Antioch,  especially  of  the  former. 
Even  in  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council  Eusebius  does 
not  speak  of  Peter  as  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome,  although 
he  represents  him  as  preaching  there. 

"  After  the  martyrdo7n  of  Paul  and  Peter^^  *  he  says, 
^*  Linus  was  the  first  that  received  the  episcopate  at 
Rome."  And  he  reckons  the  bishops  from  Linus,  without 
ever  speaking  of  St.  Peter  as  Bishop  of  Rome.  It  is  not 
quite  the  same  with  respect  to  Antioch.  ''  On  the  death 
of  Evodius,"  t  he  says,  "who  was  the  first  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  Ignatius  was  appointed  the  second."  It  is  true 
that,  in  another  place,  he  shows  that  St.  Peter  had  been 
spoken  of  as  Bishop  of  Antioch  ;  for,  although  he  does 
not  actually  give  him  that  designation,  he  does  say 
of  Ignatius  that  he  is  "celebrated  by  many  (-ra^a 
crXs/tfro/g),  even  to  this  day,  as  the  successor  of  Peter  at 
Antioch,"  and  "  the  second  that  obtained  the  episcopal 
office  there,"  that  is,  next  to  Evodius,  the  first  bishop. 
It  is  interesting  to  remark,  as  confirmatory  of  our  theory 
respecting  the  association  of  St.  Peter  with  these  two 
great  centres,  how  much  earlier  he  was  spoken  of  as 
Bishop  of  Antioch  than  of  Rome.  Thus,  of  his  con- 
nection with  Rome,  Origen  (quoted  by  Eusebius,  EccL 
Hist.,  iii.  1)  says,  "At  last  he  [Peter]  came  to  Rome, 
and  was  crucified  head  downwards ;  for  he  had  requested 
that  he  might  be  thus  crucified ; "  whereas,  of  his  con- 
nection with  Antioch  he  says  (Horn.  6  in  St.  Luc), 
"  I  mean  Ignatius,  the  second  Bishop  of  Antioch  after 

more  important  place,  consequently  it  was  placed  next  to  the  capital 
of  the  empire. 

*  Ecd.Hist.,  iii.  2.  f  Ibid.,  iii.  i^. 

G 


98  ST.  PETER,  ST  JAMES,  AND 

blessed  Peter."  This  is  what  might  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected under  the  circumstances.  St.  Peter  could  not 
possibly  be  set  over  the  Church  at  Jerusalem.  The 
facts  respecting  his  connection  with  Rome  were  too 
well  known  to  make  it  easy  at  will  to  confer  upon  him  the 
episcopate  of  that  city  ;  but  Antioch  and  its  history  were 
comparatively  little  known  ;  and  undoubtedly  St.  Peter 
would  have  been,  for  a  long  time,  the  leading  teacher 
and  apostle  in  that  place.  If,  however,  we  accept  the 
legend  that  he  was  for  twenty-five  years  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  any  possible  chronology  of  the  earlier  apostolic 
history,  it  will  be  extremely  difficult  to  find  a  period  in 
his  life  when  he  could  have  been  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
and  for  seven  years  !  Let  the  reader  try  to  work  the 
problem. 

The  importance  of  these  considerations  will  be  appa- 
rent. We  have  at  least  endeavoured  to  state  the  facts 
with  accuracy,  and  we  are  not  aware  of  others  which 
conflict  with  them.  As  regards  our  conclusions,  it  may 
be  observed  that  they  do  little  beyond  bringing  out 
clearly  the  points  which  are  not  ambiguously  contained 
in  the  authorities  which  have  been  adduced. 

Our  readers  can  judge  whether  this  has  been  done 
with  fairness  and  candour.  The  question  which  we 
must  always  keep  clearly  before  us  •  is  this  :  Do  these 
records  testify  to  a  primacy  of  jurisdiction  as  belonging 
to  St.  Peter  ?  Do  they  even  leave  room  for  the  working 
of  such  a  principle  ?  We  can  see  no  place  for  it  either 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  or  in  the  Apostolic  Epistles. 
And  undoubtedly  the  natural  view  of  the  position  of  St. 
James,  as  set  forth  in  the  Acts,  is  supported  by  the 
account  of  his  election  and  position  as  given  by  Eusebius. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM.  gg 

If  the  Roman  view  be  the  true  one,  the  history  could 
not  possibly  have  been  written  in  this  form.  We  find 
no  single  difiiculty  in  the  Acts,  the  Epistles,  the  Church 
History  of  Eusebius,  if  we  confront  their  contents  with 
that  view  of  St.  Peter's  position  which  we  have  endea- 
voured to  state  as  the  true  one.  One  incidental  gain, 
besides,  may  accrue  to  us  from  this  investigation,  that  it 
does  enable  us  in  a  measure  to  account  for  the  rise  of 
the  legend  of  St.  Peter.  The  Romans  challenge  us  to 
account  for  the  fact  which  is  before  our  eyes  :  our  answer 
is,  that  the  careful  and  minute  study  of  Christian  history 
will  at  least  enable  us  to  give  a  fairly  adequate  response 
to  that  challenge. 


(     loo    ) 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

Is  the  Roman  interpretation  verified  by  ecclesiastical  testimony  ? — The 
Vincentian  Canon— The  Apostolic  Fathers — I'he  significance  of  their 
writings — St  Clement  of  Rome — His  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
— Its  bearing  on  the  Papal  question — Dr.  Lightfoot's  remarks — 
Quotations— Germ  of  Roman,  not  of  Papal,  pretensions — Barnabas 
— Hennas — St.  Ignatius  of  A ntioch — Dr.  Lightfoot's  remarks— St. 
Ignatius  writes  to  the  Romans,  but  makes  no  reference  to  any 
Petrine  or  Papal  supremacy — His  other  writings  —  No  trace  of 
Roman  claims — General  effect  of  the  testimony  of  this  period. 

We  have  endeavoured,  with  all  possible  fairness,  to 
examine  the  first  records  of  the  Christian  Church,  with 
the  view  of  ascertaining  what  information  they  give  us 
respecting  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter.  Do  they  confirm 
the  Roman  or  the  anti-Roman  view  of  the  subject? 
Do  they  tell  us — would  they,  apart  from  any  precon- 
ceived theory  either  way,  lead  us  to  think — that  Christ 
gave  to  St.  Peter  the  earthly  sovereignty  of  the  Christian 
Church?  This  is  the  question  which  we  must,  so  to 
speak,  carry  about  with  us,  as  we  pass  through  these 
successive  stages  of  Church  history. 

It  is  constantly  said  by  Roman  advocates  that  no  one 
would  think  of  giving  any  other  interpretation  than  that 
which  they  defend,  of  the  great  text  respecting  the  Rock 


THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH,  loi 

on  which  the  Church  is  built,  unless  he  had  the  most 
inveterate  prejudice  against  the  truth.  But  this  is  beg- 
ging the  question.  Each  side  in  the  controversy  comes 
to  the  text  with  his  own  prejudices ;  each  side  views  it 
under  the  influence  of  those  prejudices.  There  is  one 
arbiter  to  which  both  parties,  if  they  are  honest  and 
earnest,  must  submit  the  decision  of  the  question,  viz., 
the  testimony  of  other  portions  of  Scripture,  and  the 
testimony  of  history. 

A  tremendous  truth  like  that,  if  it  be  a  truth,  must 
make  its  presence  and  power  felt  everywhere.  The 
Romans  do  not  exaggerate  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion. If  their  view  of  the  subject  be  true,  they  are  right 
in  sounding  an  alarm  throughout  Christendom.  If  to 
be  out  of  Peter  is  to  be  out  of  Christ ;  and,  if  one  can- 
not be  *^in  Peter '^  unless  he  recognizes  the  sovereignty 
of  the  Pope,  then  those  who  are  not  in  communion  with 
Rome  are  in  mortal  peril ;  and  no  warnings  can  be  too 
emphatic,  no  appeals  addressed  to  them  can  be  too 
urgent. 

But  if  this  be  so,  so  much  the  more  important  is  it 
that  we  should  investigate  with  care  the  evidences  upon 
which  this  theory  is  alleged  to  rest.  And  we  are  con- 
tented to  adopt  the  Catholic  test —  Quod  semper,  quod 
ubique,  quod  ab  ojitnibus  (^'We  must  receive  that  w4iich 
has  been  always,  everywhere,  and  universally  believed  ") 
— and  to  adopt  that  test  understood  in  the  most  liberal 
manner  fairly  possible — yea,  even  in  the  sense  most 
favourable  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  so  long  as  its  letter 
and  its  spirit  are  not  alike  contradicted. 

Do  the  evidences  afforded  from  the  Roman  side  meet 
the  demands  of  this  canon?     This,  of  course,  is  the 


102  THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH, 

question  which  is  diversely  answered.  We  think  not ; 
they  beUeve  that  they  do.  And  it  is  here,  and  we  may 
say  here  only,  that  accurate  and  careful  investigation 
is  demanded.  As  we  read  the  proofs  which  are  offered 
from  the  other  side,  they  seem  to  us  to  be  of  this  nature: 
First,  we  have  one  text  which  is  said  to  be  utterly  and 
entirely  conclusive;  then  we  have  two  others  which 
offer  a  strong  presumption  on  the  same  side  ;  and  finally, 
a  large  number  of  sayings  and  of  words  which  either 
demand  the  same  theory  to  satisfy  them,  or  else  adapt 
themselves  better  to  this  than  to  any  other. 

Now,  let  us  say  distinctly,  that,  although  the  texts  in 
the  Gospels  do  not  speak  to  us  as  they  do  to  Romans, 
yet  we  should  not  finally  quarrel  with  their  interpretation 
of  them,  if  it  were  continuously  illustrated  and  coiifirnied 
by  the  Scripture  records  of  the  early  days  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  by  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Church,  in 
its  inward  relations.  This  is  what  we  understand  by 
the  Vincentian  Canon.  And  this,  we  are  forced  to  say, 
is  not  what  the  Romans  give  us. 

They  profess,  indeed,  to  find  their  idea  of  St.  Peter's 
office  in  the  Church  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the 
Acts  j  but  we  can  discover  no  trace  of  the  authority 
which  they  assign  to  him  :  on  the  contrary,  it  appears 
to  be  excluded  by  the  facts  which  are  there  recorded^ 
and  it  is  absolutely  incompatible  with  the  language  of 
St.  Paul. 

When  we  leave  the  pages  of  the  Bible  and  ask  for 
post-scriptural  testimony  to  the  continuous  and  unbroken 
recognition  of  the  Petrine  and  Papal  sovereignty,  we  are 
referred  to  the  Council  of  Ephesusand  St.  Leo,  or,  worse 
still,  to  the  claims  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great.     In  other 


THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH,  103 

words,  when  we  have  barely  left  the  first  century,  and 
are  only  crossing  the  threshold  of  the  second,  we  are 
asked  to  contemplate  the  irresistible  testimony  of  facts 
which  belong  to  the  fifth.  We  cannot  accept  this  as  an 
answer  to  our  demand.  We  confess  that  our  opponents 
have  a  perfect  right  to  ask  that  we  shall  give  some  ex- 
planation of  the  acceptance  of  the  Papal  authority  in 
later  times  \  and  we  believe  that  such  reasonable  explana- 
tion will  be  afforded  by  a  careful  examination  of  the 
history ;  but  we  cannot  allow  decades  and  generations 
and  centuries  to  be  passed  over,  and  then  the  assump- 
tion to  be  made  that  sufficient  proof  has  been  given  of 
the  continuity  of  the  Papal  claims  and  of  their  acceptance 
by  the  Church. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  dwell  longer  upon 
the  Biblical  aspect  of  the  question.  If  St.  James  and 
St.  Paul  know  nothing  of  any  subjection  to  St.  Peter, 
St,  John  knows  as  little.  He  knows  of  One  who  has  the 
Key  of  David,  Who  opens  so  that  no  one  shall  shut,  and 
shuts  so  that  no  one  shall  open  ;  but  that  One  is  not 
Peter.  We  will  therefore  go  forward  to  the  age  of  the 
writers  who  are  known  as  the  "Apostolic  Fathers,"  and 
ask  whether  these  venerable  authorities  have  preserved 
for  us  any  record  of  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Petrine 
and  Papal  supremacy  during  the  age  to  which  they 
belong — roughly  speaking,  from  near  the  end  of  the 
first  century  to  the  middle  or  third  quarter  of  the 
second. 

Now,  we  have  no  wish  to  forget  that  the  writings  of 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  are  what  are  called  occasional 
productions  and  in  no  sense  theological  treatises.  We 
also  admit  the  fairness  of  the  Roman  statement,  from 


I04     '       THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH, 

that  point  of  view,  that  we  are  not  to  expect  any  formal 
defence  of  a  position  when  it  is  not  assailed;  and  there- 
fore, if  the  supremacy  of  Peter  and  of  the  Pope  was 
acknowledged  or  tacitly  accepted  in  the  first  two  cen- 
turies, we  have  no  right  to  expect  any  formal,  earnest 
assertion  of  it. 

All  these  statements  are  quite  reasonable.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  some  trace 
shall  be  found  of  a  power  and  influence  so  tremendous 
and  so  all-pervading  as  that  which  is  claimed  for  the 
bishops  of  Rome  throughout  the  whole  history  of  the 
Church.  We  cannot  bring  ourselves  to  beheve  that 
such  claims  should  have  been  conceded  without  our 
having,  at  least,  some  slight  evidence  of  it  in  these  docu- 
ments, especially  in  those  which  refer  to  Rome  or  its 
bishop. 

Do  we  find  any  such  testimony  in  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  ?  This  is  the  question  we  are  now  to  answer  ; 
and  we  say  at  once,  that  it  must  be  answered  emphati- 
cally in  the  negative.  And  such  a  phenomenon,  in  any 
case  remarkable,  is  made  increasingly  so  by  the  con- 
sideration that  we  possess  one  precious  composition  of 
a  Bishop  of  Rome,  written  probably  before  the  end  of 
the  first  century,  and  under  circumstances  which  would 
have  led  him  quite  naturally  to  assert  his  authority,  if  he 
had  claimed  any  over  the  Church,  and  had  thought  that 
it  would  be  allowed  by  those  to  whom  he  wrote. 

We  refer,  of  course,  to  St.  Clement  of  Rome  ;  and  we 
assume,  as  generally  acknowledged  by  critics  of  all 
schools,  that  he  wrote  the  first  of  the  two  epistles  to 
which  his  name  has  been  attached,  and  that  it  was 
written,  almost  certainly,  not  long  before  the  end  of  the 


THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH,  105 

first  century,  long  indeed  after  the  death  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul,  but  probably  before  the  composition  of 
St.  John's  Gospel  was  concluded. 

Now,  when  we  consider  that  this  letter  was  written  to 
the  Corinthian  Church  at  a  time  when  those  very  faults 
were  prevailing  for  which  they  had  been  rebuked  by  St. 
Paul,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  imagine  that  a  Bishop  of 
Rome  should  have  written  to  them  on  such  a  subject, 
without  in  some  way  referring  to  his  authority  over  the 
Church  at  large,  if  he  were  understood  to  possess  any 
such  authority.  And  yet,  as  we  have  said,  he  does 
not  once  refer  to  himself  or  his  office.  The  letter  is 
addressed  throughout  from  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the 
Church  of  Corinth,  from  "  the  Church  of  God  sojourning 
{^aoarAoZca)  at  Rome  to  the  Church  of  God  sojourning 
at  Corinth ;  '^  and  the  plural  number,  evidently  with 
reference  to  the  Church,  and  not  to  the  bishop,  is 
constantly  used.  In  fact,  it  is  described,  in  the  second 
century,  by  Dionysius  of  Corinth  and  Irenaeus  of  Lyons, 
as  a  letter  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  not  from  the 
bishop. 

In  this  epistle  there  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to 
any  power  claimed,  or  supposed  to  be  possessed,  by  the 
Romari  bishop.  His  self-suppression,  indeed,  is  some- 
thing quite  remarkable.  *'  It  might  have  been  expected 
that  somewhere  towards  the  close  mention  would  have 
been  made  (though  in  the  third  person)  of  the  famous 
man  who  was  at  once  the  actual  writer  of  the  letter  and 
the  chief  ruler  of  the  Church  in  whose  name  it  was 
written.  Now,  however,  that  we  possess  the  work 
complete,  we  see  that  his  existence  is  not  once  hinted 
at  from  beginning  to  end.     The  name  and  personality  of 


io6        ^  THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH, 

Clement  are  absorbed  in  the  Church  of  which  he  is  the 
spokesman." 

And  yet,  as  Bishop  Lightfoot  (whose  words  we  have 
been  quoting)  has  pointed  out,*^  although  there  is  nothing 
like  the  Papal  claims  in  this  epistle,  it  does  in  some 
measure  enable  us  **to  understand  more  fully  the  secret 
of  Papal  domination."  The  tone  in  which  the  letter  is 
written,  as  this  writer  remarks,  is  "urgent  and  almost 
imperious.  .  .  .  They  exhort  the  offenders  to  submit 
'  not  to  them,  but  to  the  will  of  God/  '  Receive  our 
counsel,'  they  write  again,  '  and  ye  shall  have  no  occa- 
sion of  regret.'  Then  they  return  to  the  subject  and  use 
still  stronger  language  :  *  Ye  will  give  us  great  joy  and 
gladness,  if  ye  render  obedience  unto  the  things  written 
by  us  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  root  out  the  un- 
righteous anger  of  your  jealousy,  according  to  the 
entreaty  which  we  have  made  for  peace  and  concord 
in  this  letter ;  and  we  have  also  sent  unto  you  faithful 
and  prudent  men,  that  have  walked  among  us  from 
youth  unto  old  age  unblameably,  who  shall  be  witnesses 
between  you  and  us.  And  this  we  have  done,  that  ye 
might  know  that  we  have  had,  and  still  have,  every 
solicitude,  that  ye  may  speedily  be  at  peace.'  *  It  may 
perhaps,'  proceeds  Dr.  Lightfoot,  ^  seem  strange  to  de- 
scribe this  noble  remonstrance  as  the  first  step  towards 
Papal  aggression.  And  yet  undoubtedly  this  is  the  case. 
There  is  all  the  difference  in  the  world  between  the 
attitude  of  Rome  towards  other  Churches  at  the  close 
of  the  first  century,  when  the  Romans  as  a  community 
remonstrate  on  terms  of  equality  with  the  Corinthians  on 

*  In  the  Appendix  to  his  edition  of  St.  Clement  of  Rome, 
IfttroducHonj  pp.  252  ff. 


THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  107 

their  irregularities,  strong  only  in  the  righteousness  of 
their  cause,  and  feeling,  as  they  had  a  right  to  feel,  that 
these  counsels  of  peace  were  the  dictation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  its  attitude  at  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
when  Victor  the  bishop  excommunicates  the  Churches  of 
Asia  Minor  for  clinging  to  a  usage  in  regard  to  the  cele- 
bration of  Easter  which  had  been  handed  down  to  them 
from  the  apostles,  and  thus  foments  instead  of  healing 
dissensions.  Even  this  second  stage  has  carried  the 
power  of  Rome  only  a  very  small  step  in  advance  towards 
the  pretensions  of  a  Hildebrand  or  an  Innocent  or  a 
Boniface,  or  even  of  a  Leo  j  but  it  is  nevertheless  a 
decided  step.  The  substitution  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
for  the  Church  of  Rome  is  an  all-important  point.  The 
later  Roman  theory  supposes  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
derives  all  its  authority  from  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter.  History  inverts  this  relation  and 
shows  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  power  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  was  built  upon  the  power  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  It  was  originally  a  primacy,  not  of  the  episcopate, 
but  of  the  Church.  The  position  of  the  Roman  Church, 
which  this  newly  recovered  ending  of  Clement's  epistle 
throws  out  in  such  strong  relief,  accords  entirely  with 
the  notices  in  other  early  documents.'' 

x\part  from  this  there  is  nothing  in  the  epistle  which 
bears  even  remotely  on  this  question.  The  name  of 
Peter  occurs  but  once;  and  with  no  reference  either  to 
any  supremacy  which  he  possessed,  or  to  any  connection 
of  his  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  and  St.  Paul  are 
mentioned  together  as  examples  of  suffering  virtue  and 
of  martyrdom   on  account  of  their  fidelity.     There  is 


io8  THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH, 

not  a  word  of  any  peculiar  powers  possessed  by  him,  or 
transmitted  by  him  to  the  Church  or  the  Bishop  of 
Rome. 

In  the  so-called  second  epistle  of  Clement,  which  is 
now  generally  believed  to  be  neither  an  epistle  nor  a 
composition  of  that  writer,  but  a  homily  of  the  second 
century,  the  name  of  St.  Peter  also  occurs,  and  curiously 
in  connection,  as  it  would  appear,  with  a  quotation 
from  an  apocryphal  Gospel ;  but  of  any  Petrine  or  Papal 
claims  there  is  not  a  word  or  a  hint. 

We  pass  on  to  the  epistle  of  Barnabas.  Without  dis- 
cussing the  authorship,  although  it  seems  to  us  impossible 
that  it  should  proceed  from  the  companion  of  St.  Paul,"^ 
we  may  remark  that  the  name  of  Peter  does  not  occur 
in  it ;  nor  is  there  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  Petrine 
or  Papal  claims. 

Leaving  St.  Ignatius  till  the  last,  as  the  most  important, 
we  take  up  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  In  this  book  we 
might  expect  to  hear  something  of  Roman  claims,  if  the 
view  be  true  that  he  was  a  brother  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  But  in  any  case  he  was  connected  with  Rome  ; 
for  in  the  only  place  in  which  the  city  is  named  he  tells 
us  that  he  was  sold  in  Rome  by  the  man  who  had  brought 
him  up.  Here,  again,  the  name  of  Peter  does  not  once 
occur.  In  the  *^  Similitudes  "  (ix.  2)  he  introduces  a  very 
elaborate  description  of  a  symbolical  rock  (-Trsr^a) ;  but 
the  Rock  is  Christ  (ix.  12).  It  should,  however,  be  men- 
tioned that,  in  another  part  of  the  '-'Shepherd''  (Vis.  ii.4), 
there  is  an  allusion  to  a  Clement,  whom  almost  all  com- 
mentators regard  as  the  St.  Clement  of  whom  we  have 

*  As  is,  however,  maintained  by  Dr.  Lee,  On  Inspiration,  and 
Dr.  Milligan,  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Christian  Biography. 


THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH,  109 

already  spoken."^  Hermas  is  commanded  by  the 
*'  Shepherd  "  to  write  two  copies  of  the  revelation  made 
to  him,  "  and  thou  shalt  send  one  to  Clement,  and  one 
to  Grapte  ;  and  Clement  shall  send  to  the  cities  abroad, 
for  to  him  this  charge  is  entrusted."  It  is  not  absolutely 
certain  that  the  allusion  is  to  Clement  of  Rome.  If  it 
is,  we  may  truly  say  with  Bishop  Lightfoot,  that  ^'  the 
reserve  of  Clement  in  his  epistle  harmonizes  also  with 
the  very  modest  estimate  of  his  dignity  implied  ''  in  this 
language.  Of  the  writings  of  St.  Polycarp  it  may  be 
sufficient  to  say,  that  there  is  nothing  in  them  which  has 
any  reference  to  this  question. 

The  writings  of  St.  Ignatius  are  of  more  importance. 
He  was  the  second  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  suffered  martyr- 
dom at  Rome  in  the  first  or  second  decade  of  the  second 
century,  so  that  he  was  a  contemporary  of  St.  Clement, 
although  the  latter  is  said  to  have  been  dead  before 
Ignatius  arrived  in  Rome.  Among  other  letters  which 
are  ascribed  to  him,  some  genuine  and  others  spurious, 
there  is  one  addressed  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  This  is 
not  the  place  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  writings  which  pass  under  his  name.  We  are 
contented  to  express  our  belief,  with  nearly  all  com- 
petent critics,  that  the  fifteen  lengthy  epistles  are  either 
spurious  or  interpolated,  and  to  believe  wdth  the  more 
moderate  and  reasonable  of  all  schools  that  the  shorter 
Greek  form  is  genuine.  We  shall  not,  however,  find  it 
necessary  to  ignore  any  part  of  the  writings  which  are 
assigned  to  him. 

*  Donaldson  thinks  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  refer- 
ence is  to  Clement  of  Rome.  Even  if  it  be  so,  it  proves  nothmg  in 
reference  to  the  Papal  claims. 


no  THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH, 

On  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius  to  the  Romans,  Dr.  Light- 
foot  has  the  following  remarks: — '^A  very  few  years 
later  [than  the  date  of  St.  Clement's  epistle] — from  ten 
to  twenty — Ignatius  writes  to  Rome.  He  is  a  staunch 
advocate  of  episcopacy.  Of  his  six  remaining  letters  [in 
the  shorter  Greek  form]  one  is  addressed  to  a  bishop  as 
bishop ;  and  the  other  five  all  enforce  the  duty  of  the 
Churches  whom  he  addresses  to  their  respective  bishops. 
Yet  in  the  letter  to  the  Church  of  Rome  there  is  not  the 
faintest  allusion  to  the  episcopal  office  from  first  to  last. 
He  entreats  the  Roman  Christians  not  to  intercede,  and 
thus,  by  obtaining  a  pardon  or  commutation  of  sentence, 
to  rob  him  of  the  crown  of  martyrdom.  In  the  course 
of  his  entreaty  he  uses  words  which  doubtless  refer  in 
part  to  Clement's  epistle,  and  which  the  newly  recovered 
ending  enables  us  to  appreciate  more  fully :  *  Ye  never 
yet,'  he  writes,  *  envied  any  one,'  that  is,  grudged  him 
the  glory  of  a  consistent  course  of  endurance  and  self- 
sacrifice,  'ye  were  the  teachers  of  others.'  They  would 
therefore  be  inconsistent  with  their  former  selves,  he 
implies,  if  in  his  own  case  they  departed  from  those 
counsels  of  self-renunciation  and  patience  which  they 
had  urged  so  strongly  on  the  Corinthians  and  others. 
But,  though  Clement's  letter  is  apparently  in  his  mind, 
there  is  no  mention  of  Clement  or  Clement's  successor 
throughout.  Yet  at  the  same  time  he  assigns  a  primacy 
to  Rome.  The  Church  is  addressed  in  the  opening 
salutation  as  '  she  who  hath  the  presidency  (^^oxddrjTa/) 
in  the  place  of  the  region  of  the  Romans.'  But  im- 
mediately afterwards  the  nature  of  this  supremacy  is 
defined.  The  presidency  of  this  Church  is  declared  to 
be  a  presidency  of  love  (cr^oxa^^j^.si'Tj  tt;;  uyaTrr};).     This, 


I 


THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  iii 


then,  was  the  original  primacy  of  Rome — a  primacy  not 
of  the  bishop  but  of  the  whole  Church,  a  primacy  not 
of  official  authority  but  of  practical  goodness,  backed, 
however,  by  the  prestige  and  the  advantages  which  were 
necessarily  enjoyed  by  the  Church  of  the  metropolis.'' 

This  is  the  most  important  of  the  references  of  St. 
Ignatius  to  the  Church  of  Rome ;  and  in  no  other  part 
of  his  writings  is  there  a  line  or  a  word  which  betrays 
any  knowledge,  on  his  part,  of  a  supremacy  as  belonging 
to  the  Roman  bishop,  or  of  any  privileges  inherited  by 
him  from  St.  Peter. 

In  fact,  Peter  is  mentioned  by  name  only  twice  in  the 
genuine  epistles,  and  not  very  often  in  the  spurious; 
Rome  also  twice  in  the  first  class,  and  five  or  six  times  in 
the  second.  The  first  three  bishops  are  mentioned  only 
in  the  spurious  epistles.  These  allusions  are  of  slight 
importance,  and  have  no  other  bearing  upon  this  con- 
troversy than  to  show  that  Ignatius,  and  even  pseudo- 
Ignatius,  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Petrine  and  Papal 
claims. 

Thus  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (iv.  2,  3)  he  says, 
"  Not  as  Peter  and  Paul  do  I  command  you.  They  were 
apostles,  I  am  a  condemned  man ;  they  were  free,  I  am 
a  slave  until  now;"  where,  like  other  writers  of  that 
period,  he  places  Peter  and  Paul  on  an  equality.  The 
allusions  in  the  spurious  epistles  to  the  Roman  bishops 
are  not  without  interest,  as  showing  at  least  the  view  of 
the  time  in  which  these  writings  originated.  In  the  Epis- 
tola  ad  Martain  Cassoholitam  (cap.  4),  the  writer  refers 
to  what  she  had  heard  *^from  the  blessed  Pope  (cra-Tra — 
a  name  for  a  long  time  given  to  all  bishops)  Anencletus, 
who  was  succeeded  by  the  most  blessed  Clement,  the 


112  THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  CHURCH, 

hearer  of  Peter  and  Paul."  In  the  Epistola  ad  Trallianos^ 
the  writer  speaks  of  deacons  as  being  "  imitators  of  Christ 
and  servants  to  the  bishop,  as  Christ  to  the  Father  .  .  . 
as  Timothy  and  Linus  were  to  Paul,  and  Anencletus  and 
Clement  to  Peter."  It  is  indeed  somewhat  surprising, 
when  we  consider  how  these  ancient  documents  have 
been  tampered  with,  that  nothing  had  ever  been  foisted 
in,  either  innocently  or  with  a  controversial  purpose,  in 
support  of  the  Papal  pretensions. 

And  what,  now,  is  the  result  of  our  inquiries  into  the 
Christian  literature  of  the  age  immediately  succeeding 
that  of  the  apostles  ?  It  is  simply  this,  that  any  supe- 
riority of  one  bishop  to  another,  or  of  one  Church  to 
another,  was  altogether  unknown.  Precedence  might 
be  at  one  time  granted  to  one  apostle,  as  was  undoubtedly 
the  case  with  St  Peter;  at  another  time  to  another,  as 
would  appear  not  at  all  unlikely  in  the  case  of  St.  James. 
The  same  honorary  priority  might  be  given  to  a  Church, 
as  in  the  first  days  to  Jerusalem,  subsequently  to  Antioch, 
and  afterwards  to  Rome  ;  but  in  each  case  for  reasons 
which  we  might  call  accidental.  Of  any  power  given  to 
any  particular  Church  because  it  was  the  See  of  Peter, 
to  any  bishop  because  he  succeeded  to  the  possession 
and  privileges  of  that  see,  primitive  Christianity  has  no 
knowledge.  In  other  words,  the  sub-apostolic  age  knows 
nothing  of  the  Petrine  and  Papal  sovereignty. 


(    113    ) 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ST,  IRE N^ US  AND  HIS  AGE. 

The  Apologists — Irenaeus,  his  age — The  importance  of  his  testimony — 
The  principal  passage,  Bk.  iii.  c.  3 — The  Greek  lost — Quoted  in 
Latin — The  occasion  of  his  statement — The  meaning  of  the  passage 
— Various  interpretations — Assigned  great  importance  to  the  Roman 
Church — Not  to  the  Roman  Bishop — Nor  to  the  Roman  Church  as 
deriving  a  Primacy  from  St.  Peter — Particular  expressions  considered 
— Irenaeus  says  nothing  of  Papal  authority  or  supremacy — Accounted 
for  only  by  the  fact  that  Irenaeus  knew  nothing  of  such  authority — 
The  Paschal  controversy — Bishop  Victor  of  Rome — His  arbitrary 
conduct — Its  effect— Interposition  of  Irenaeus — His  ignorance  of 
any  Papal  supremacy — Clement  of  Alexandria — Tertullian— His 
argument  against  ^leretics  similar  to  that  of  Irenaeus— He  knows 
nothing  of  a  Roman  or  Papal  primacy — Origen  misrepresented — 
His  testimony— General  result  of  the  testimonies  of  this  period. 

It  is  quite  reasonable  that  we  should  expect  but  little 
reference  to  the  subject  of  our  inquiry  in  the  writings 
of  the  Apologists  ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  neither  side 
adduces  their  testimony.  When,  however,  we  pass  from 
them  to  the  next  earliest  Christian  writer,  Irenaeus,  we 
meet  with  at  least  one  passage  of  the  very  greatest  im- 
portance in  this  controversy ;  which,  therefore,  we  are 
bound  to  examine  with  the  utmost  care. 

Irenaeus,  let  it  be  remembered,  flourished  during  the 
last  three-quarters  of  the  second  century,  dying  a  martyr 

H 


114  ST.  IRENA^US  AND  HIS  AGE, 

at  the  very  end  of  it,  after  being  Bishop  of  Lyons  about 
twenty  years. "^  His  birth  was  probably  from  twenty  to 
five  and  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John  ;  and 
he  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp.  Consequently  his  testi- 
mony is  of  the  greatest  value. 

Without  attempting  to  discuss  the  question  of  the 
just  influence  of  the  Fathers  in  Christian  controversies, 
we  must  state  briefly  and  clearly  what  it  is  that  Irenaeus 
may  properly  be  brought  forward  to  prove  or  to  disprove. 
To  what  points  does  his  testimony  refer?  For  what 
purpose  is  it  adduced  ?  The  answer  is  simple.  Irenaeus 
is  not  brought  forward  to  settle  any  controversy  by  his 
own  authority.  He  is  only  cited  as  a  witness  to  facts. 
He  can  tell  us  what  was  his  own  opinion  and  the  opinion 
of  his  age.  He  can  bear  credible  testimony  to  facts  that 
were  within  his  own  knowledge  ;  and  this  is  all.  The 
distinct  remembrance  of  these  points  will  greatly  simplify 
our  inquiry. 

There  are  considerable  difficulties  with  regard  to 
particular  points  in  the  passage  of  Irenaeus,  which  we 
are  about  to  quote  (Book  iii.  Chap.  3).  The  original 
Greek  is  lost,  and  the  Latin  is  of  a  peculiar  and  un- 
certain character.  Considerable  difference  of  opinion 
exists  as  to  the  probable  words  in  the  Greek  original 
which  are  represented  by  the  Latin  translation.  In 
spite  of  all  these  difficulties,  we  shall  find  that,  on  certain 
points  at  least,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of 
Irenaeus.  On  account  of  the  importance  of  the  subject, 
we  will  first  give  the  passage  as  it  stands  in  the  Latin, 
simply  premising  that  Irenaeus  is  writing  against  certain 

*  According  to  Eusebius  {Eccl.  Hist.,  v.  24)  he  succeeded  Pothinus 
as  Bishop  of  Lyons,  A.D.  177. 


ST.  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE.  115 

heresies  which  were  prevalent  in  his  day,  and  saying 
that  they  may  be  detected  and  exposed  by  confronting 
them  with  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church.  As, 
however,  it  would  be  a  long  and  tedious  work  thus  to  go 
through  the  whole  Church,  he  adds,  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  test  them  by  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

"  Sed  quoniam  valde  longum  est  in  hoc  tali  volumine 
omnium  Ecclesiarum  enumerare  successiones ;  maximae 
et  antiquissimse  et  omnibus  cognitse,  a  gloriosissimis 
duobus  apostolis  Petro  et  Paulo  Romse  fundatae  et  con- 
stitutae  Ecclesiae,  eam  quam  habet  ab  Apostolis  traditi- 
onem,  et  annunciatam  hominibus  fidem,  per  successiones 
episcoporum  pervenientem  usque  ad  nos  indicantes, 
confundimus  omnes  eos,  qui  quoquemodo,  vel  per  sibi 
placentia  [sibi  placentiam  malam,"^]  vel  vanam  gloriam, 
vel  per  caecitatem  et  malam  sententiam,  praeterquam 
oportet  colligunt.  Ad  hanc  enim  Ecclesiam  propter 
potentiorem  [potiorem]  principalitatem  necesse  est 
omnem  convenire  Ecclesiam,  hoc  est,  eos  qui  sunt 
undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper  ab  his,  qui  sunt  undique, 
conservata  est  ea  quae  est  ab  apostolis  traditio.'' 

This  passage  is  thus  translated  by  Mr.  Allies,  himself 
a  Roman  Catholic,  in  his  work  entitled,  "  St.  Peter,  his 
Name  and  his  Office,  as  set  forth  in  Holy  Scripture," 
Chap.  viii.  (near  the  end)  :  "For  since  it  would  be  very 
long  in  the  compass  of  our  present  work  to  enumerate 
the  successions  of  all  the  Churches,  taking  that  Church 
which  is  the  greatest,  the  m^ost  ancient,  and  well  known 
to  all,  founded  and  established  at  Rome  by  the  two 
most  glorious  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  by  indicating 
that  tradition  which  it  has  from  the  apostles,  and  the 
*  The  phrases  bracketed  are  the  various  readings. 


ii6  ST.  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE. 

faith  which  it  announces  to  men,  which  has  reached 
sven  to  us  by  the  succession  of  Bishops,  we  confound  all 
those,  who,  in  whatsoever  manner,  either  through  self- 
pleasing  or  vain-glory,  or  blindness  and  evil  intention, 
gather  otherwise  than  they  ought.  For  to  this  Church, 
on  account  of  its  superior"^  principate,  it  is  necessary 
that  every  Church  should  come  together,  that  is,  the 
faithful  who  are  everywhere ;  for  in  this  Church  the 
tradition  which  is  from  the  apostles  has  been  preserved 
by  those  who  are  everywhere/^ 

The  two  parts  as  to  the  meaning  of  which  there  is 
some  difference  of  opinion  are  first  the  expression 
translated  "superior  principate,"  and  then  the  passage 
which  follows  that  to  the  end  of  the  extract.  It  could 
serve  little  purpose  to  collect  here  the  various  sug- 
gestions which  have  been  offered  as  to  the  Greek  words 
which  occupied  the  place  of  these  Latin  expressions.t 
We  must  determine  upon  the  passage  as  it  stands :  first, 
what  is  its  probable  meaning ;  and  secondly,  what  is  the 
teaching  of  that  part  of  its  meaning  which  is  certain  and 
undeniable. 

Now,  without  indulging  in  over-criticism,  we  may 
remark  that  Irenseus  is  here  stating  his  own  opinion 
simply,  and  this,  as  regards  his  facts,  in  a  somewhat 
loose  and  careless  manner.  For  instance,  it  is  not 
strictly  accurate  to  say  that  Rome  is  the  "most  ancient" 
Church    [perhaps    he    means    only    "very    ancient"], 

*  Many  different  translations  of  this  phrase  have  been  suggested. 
Mr.  Keble  makes  it  "higher  original."  It  is  of  no  great  con- 
sequence which  we  adopt. 

t  Scholars  will  find  them  in  the  editions  of  Stieren,  Harvey,  and 
Migne.    . 


ST.  IRENALUS  AND  HIS  AGE,  i  ty 


v~ 

True  to  say  that  it  was,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word, 
'^  founded  "  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  although  we  hold 
it  for  almost  certain  that  they  both  died  at  Rome. 
These  are  small  points  which  we  note  only  to  show  that 
Irenaeus  was  not  arguing  this  question,  as  though  much 
depended  upon  the  origin  of  the  Church. 

Leaving  these  points  on  one  side,  what,  we  must  ask, 
does  Irenaeus  assert?  He  ^^ clearly  and  conclusively 
enunciated,"  says  a  Roman  Catholic  writer,  ^^that  the 
Roman  Church,  among  all  Churches  of  apostolic  origin, 
is  the  first  and  the  most  eminent;  that  among  these 
Churches  it  has  the  same  authority  as  Peter  and  Paul  had 
among  the  apostles ;  and  that  the  faith  of  this  Church 
is  the  rule  and  the  standard  for  the  faith  of  all  other 
Churches.''  Now,  on  these  statements,  we  have  two 
questions  to  ask:  First,  Does  Irenaeus  say  all  this?  and 
secondly.  If  he  does,  will  his  words  cover  the  Roman 
and  Papal  claims  ?  We  must  be  careful  not  to  assume 
that,  because  he  may  seem  to  say  something  like  this, 
therefore  he  says  all  this  fully  and  precisely. 

In  answering  these  questions  we  must  be  careful  to 
draw  no  conclusions  from  uncertain  interpcetations  of 
the  words ;  and  both  sides,  as  we  shall  see,  seem  tolerably 
agreed  on  this  point.  And  the  general  meaning  of  the 
passage  may  be  fairly  ascertained  without  determining 
the  precise  sense  of  every  expression  in  detail. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  Irenaeus  did  pro- 
pose and  recommend  that  the  errors  of  heretics  should 
be  tested  and  so  condemned  by  comparing  them  with 
the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Such  a  course,  he 
says,  would  save  the  trouble  of  going  through  the  other 


ii8  ST.  IRENjEUS  and  HIS  AGE, 

Churches.  But  undoubtedly  there  was  a  special  reason 
for  selecting  the  Roman  Church  and  not  another  as  the 
test  and  arbiter  of  orthodoxy. 

Yet,  let  it  be  remarked,  first,  that  it  is  the  Church,  and 
not  the  Bishop.  If  there  is  an  advance  upon  the  theory 
of  the  Romans  in  the  days  of  St.  Clement,  it  has  not  yet 
got  to  the  point  of  putting  forward  the  authority  of  the 
Bishop,  instead  of  that  of  the  Church.  It  is  still  the 
great  and  powerful  Church  of  the  Metropolis  of  the 
world,  which  has  this  place  of  eminence. 

Remark,  again,  that  the  statement  of  the  writer  just 
quoted,  that  among  other  Churches  *^it  has  the  same 
authority  as  Peter  and  Paul  had  among  the  Apostles," 
has  no  place  whatever  in  the  words  of  Irenseus  ;  nor,  if  it 
had,  would  it  convey  to  us  the  idea  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Roman  Church  or  its  Bishop — much  less  of  the  Papal 
Primacy  as  derived  from  that  of  St.  Peter.  Irenaeus  tells 
us,  indeed  (what  it  is  impossible  to  believe  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  words),  that  the  Roman  Church  was 
^* founded"  by  the  two  great  Apostles.  But  a  believer 
in  the  Roman  theory  would  have  spoken  differently.  Pie 
would  have  said  that  Peter  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles 
was  the  first  Bishop  of  this  Church,  and  that  his  primacy 
had  descended  to  his  successors,  who  had  the  right  and 
the  power  to  examine  those  various  forms  of  truth  and 
error  which  were  going  about  in  the  world,  and  to  decide 
authoritatively  as  to  what  was  true,  and  what  false. 

It  is  quite  true  that  Irenaeus  assigns  a  position  of  pre- 
eminence to  the  Roman  Church;  and  it  is  tolerably 
certain  that,  in  ordinary  circumstances,  such  a  position 
would  be  claimed  by,  and  conceded  to,  the  Church  of 
the  chief  city  of  the  empire.     The  desire  to  preserve  the 


57;  IRENJ£US  AND  /7/S  AGE.  119 

unity  of  the  Church,  the  advantage  of  having  a  central 
authority  to  appeal  to,  the  importance  of  the  city,  its 
greater  accessibleness  to  other  Churches  in  all  parts  of 
the  empire — these  and  other  circumstances  would  con- 
duce to  its  obtaining  a  place  of  priority  with  privileges 
and  powers  which  naturally  were  more  and  more  extended 
and  more  closely  defined.  But  Irenaeus  knows  nothing 
of  a  Roman  "  principalitas  "  descending  from  St.  Peter, 
bestowed  by  a  Divine  grant,  inalienable  from  the  Roman 
Bishop  as  the  successor  and  representative  of  the  first 
Primate  of  the  Church,  the  first  Vicar  of  Christ. 

What  reason,  then,  does  he  assign  for  the  "powerful 
pre-eminence  "  of  this  Church.  The  words  which  follow 
are  differently  understood.  Some  think  that  "con- 
venire  '^  means  to  "  come  together,"  *  or  assemble  at 
Rome;  others  think  it  means  "agree  with"  (probably 
representing  the  Greek  word  cvixiSamiv)  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  latter  has  been  the  ordinary  Roman  view 
of  the  word,  the  former  was  strongly  insisted  upon  in  a 
pamphlet, f  published  by  Bollinger's  party  during  the 
Vatican  Council.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  impor- 
tant difference  in  our  conclusions  need  result  from 
adopting  either  of  these  translations  of  the  passage.  Mr. 
Allies,  a  Roman  Catholic,  translates  "come  together," 
while  the  Ante-Nicene  Library  version,  edited  by  Protes- 
tants, takes  the  other  view ;  and  an  able  writer  in  a 
Roman  Catholic  Review  J  accepts  the  translation  of  the 

*  Hefele  (Beitrdge)  says  that  this  interpretation  is  ridiculous 
{Idcherlich)  ;  it  is  not  however,  as  we  see,  absolutely  rejected  by  the 
advocates  of  the  Roman  view. 

t  Erwdgungen  fur  Bischofe. 

X  Blatter  fiir  das  Katholische  Dentschland^  vol.  Ixxiv. 


I20  ST.  I  RE  N^  US  AND  HIS  AGE. 

German  pamphlet,  and  argues  for  the  Papal  theory  upon 
that  meaning  of  the  words  of  Irenaeus. 

Let  us  suppose  that  Irenaeus  says  that  every  other 
Church  must  agree  with  the  Church  of  Rome  on  account 
of  its  ^'  superior  principate,"  whatever  that  may  mean. 
There  are  some  who  think  that  Irenaeus  is  here  referring 
to  the  pre-eminence  of  the  city  in  the  empire.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  force  of  these  words,  he  goes  on  to 
assign  a  reason  for  the  acceptance  of  the  faith  as  it  is 
found  in  the  Roman  Church,  and  for  agreement  with  it. 
^'  For  in  this  Church  "  (we  give  Mr.  Allies'  translation), 
"  the  tradition  which  is  from  the  apostles  has  been  pre- 
served by  those  who  are  everywhere.''  Only  one  word 
we  will  ask  leave  to  alter  here,  and  instead  of  "  every- 
where," put  ''  from  everywhere,"  or  "  from  all  parts,"  a 
somewhat  more  common  translation  oi  undiqiie.'^ 

Mr.  Harvey,  in  his  edition  of  Irenaeus,  says,  "  the  words 
in  qua,  translated  above  ^  in  this  Church,'  can  hardly 
refer  to  the  Church  of  Rome ;  for  how  was  the  Apos- 
tolical tradition  preserved  in  the  Church  of  Rome  by  the 
members  of  foreign  Churches  ?  "  but  surely  this  question 
entirely  misses  the  very  point  of  Irenaeus'  statement. 
The  Church  of  Rome  preserves  the  universal  faith 
because  the  universal  Church  comes  to  Rome.  Every 
one  goes  to  Rome — every  one  carries  with  him  to  Rome 
the  tradition,  the  faith,  of  his  own  Church.  Hence,  this 
faith  handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  in  all  the  various 
Churches  of  the  world,  is  by  their  members  brought  to 
Rome  and  there  preserved.     This  seems  to  be  the  exact 

*  The  Greek  word  was  probably  iravTdxoBev.  It  may  have  been 
iroLVTaxov, 


ST,  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE.  121 

meaning  of  the  words,  in  qiia  ^  se?nper  ab  his^  qui  sunt 
undique^  conservata  est  ea  qucB  est  ab  Apostolis  traditio, 
i^'  In  which  always  by  these,  who  are  from  all  parts,  is 
preserved  that  tradition  which  is  from  the  apostles.") 

Can  it  be  said,  now,  on  a  consideration  of  the  whole 
meaning  of  this  passage,  that  it  affords  the  least  sup- 
port to  the  Roman  claims  ?  Does  it  not,  on  the  contrary, 
invert  the  whole  argument  for  the  authority  and  influence 
of  that  Church  ?  According  to  Irenaeus  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  a  receptacle  of  truth,  receiving  and  retaining 
the  truth  which  is  brought  to  it  from  all  parts  of  the 
world  :  according  to  the  Papal  theory,  it  is,  on  the 
contrary,  a  fountain  of  truth,  having  its  springs  in  the 
heaven  of  heavens,  and  diffusing  the  doctrine  which  is 
thence  received  through  all  parts  of  the  Church  on  earth. 
There  is  all  the  difference  in  the  world  between  these 
two  views.  Even  if  Irenaeus  taught  the  necessity  of 
universal  conformity  with  Roman  teaching,  which  on  any 
view  of  his  words  he  can  hardly  be  said  to  do — even 
if  he  said  that  this  was  the  accepted  theory  of  his  age,  of 
which  he  gives  not  a  hint — there  would  still  be  wanting 
a  testimony  to  the  one  point  upon  which  the  whole 
Roman  theory  turns — the  primacy,  the  monarchy  of  the 
Pope,  and  the  derivation  of  that  primacy  from  the  Prince 
of  the  Apostles. 

How  can  we  account  for  such  an  omission  under  the 
circumstances?  It  is  not  as  though  he  ignored  St.  Peter 
altogether.  He  mentions  his  name,  but  along  with  that 
of  St.  Paul,  as  though  they  were  on  a  perfect  equality; 

*  We  must  agree  with  Friedrich  (before  his  rupture  with  the 
Papacy),  who  says  {Kirchengeschichte  Deutschlands)  that  the  attempt 
to  refer  in  qua  not  to  Rome,  but  to  ovmem  ecdesiam,  is  an  absurdity. 


122  ST.  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE. 

and  the  manner  in  which  he  mentions  them  is  no  less 
significant.  Neither  from  one  nor  from  both  does  the 
Church  of  Rome  or  its  Bishop  receive  any  special  privi- 
lege or  power.  Its  greatness  is  uncontested;  but  it 
does  not  derive  it  from  the  See  of  Peter.  How  can  we 
account  for  this  omission  on  the  part  of  Irenaeus?  Only 
in  one  way.  Irenaeus  knew  nothing  of  any  such  claims 
or  pretensions.  The  power  of  the  great  Church  is 
growing,  it  is  stretching  out  its  hands  to  the  right  and  to 
the  left,  it  is  becoming  the  arbiter  and  umpire  among  the 
Churches,  quite  naturally — we  had  almost  said  necessarily 
— in  many  cases  usefully.  The  greatness  of  many  of  its 
Bishops  will  come  to  support  its  local  pretensions.  And 
by  and  by  we  shall  hear  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  sits 
upon  the  throne  of  Peter,  although  it  will  be  long  before 
he  claims  to  possess  absolute  power  as  his  representative. 

As  far  as  this  passage  of  Irenaeus  goes,  simply  leaving 
it  to  say  what  it  does  say — not  reading  the  later  Roman 
theory  into  it,  by  putting  Bishop  for  Church,  by  assuming 
that  the  authority  comes  from  Peter  instead  of  resulting 
from  the  united  and  concurrent  testimony  of  the  Church 
— if  we  leave  the  passage  just  as  it  is,  it  is  in  complete 
ao^reement  with  all  that  we  have  learnt  from  the  New 
Testament  and  the  Apostolic  Fathers;  it  helps  us  to 
understand  the  subsequent  growth  of  the  Papal  legend ; 
but  it  does  not  tell  us  that  the  modern  Papal  claims  were 
admitted  in  the  days  of  Irenaeus,  or  that  those  claims 
were  asserted  as  having  descended  by  spiritual  inheritance 
from  St.  Peter. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  we  find  illustrations 
of  the  same  state  of  things  at  this  period  of  time  from 
authorities  external  to  the  works  of  Irenaeus.     We  refer 


ST.  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE,  123 

to  the  action  of  the  Roman  Bishop  in  the  paschal 
controversy.*  Briefly,  it  will  be  remembered  that  the 
Orientals,  in  accordance  with  a  tradition  said  to  be 
derived  from  St.  John,  kept  Easter  according  to  the  day 
of  the  month  ;  the  Westerns  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  difference  of  use  had  given  rise  to  various  discus- 
sions, when  at  last  Victor,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  (a.d. 
190-202),  proceeded  to  excommunicate  those  Eastern 
Churches  who  would  not  adopt  the  Western  usage. 

It  might  appear  that  an  extreme  measure  like  this  was 
a  convincing  proof  of  the  supremacy  of  Rome ;  and  it 
would  have  been  so  if  the  Roman  excommunication  had 
shut  out  the  Churches  in  question  from  communion 
with  all  other  Churches.  But  this  was  not  the  case, 
although  doubtless  the  influence  of  such  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  would  be  widely  felt.  This 
conduct  of  Victor  was  not,  however,  allowed  to  pass 
without  protest.  Various  Churches  remonstrated  widi 
him  on  his  harsh  and  arbitrary  conduct. 

Among  others  the  Church  of  Lyons  wrote  to  him  by 
the  hand  of  its  Bishop,  Irenaeus ;  and  his  letter,  as 
quoted  by  Eusebius,t  shows  that  he  was  so  far  from 
admitting  any  right  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
to  dictate  to  other  Churches  the  times  or  manners  of 
keeping  their  festivals,  that  he  assumed  the  perfect 
equality  of  all  the  bishops  in  such  matters.  He  himself, 
Eusebius  says,  **  maintains  the  duty  of  celebrating  the 
mystery  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  only  on  the  day 
of  the  Lord  \  but  he  becomingly  admonishes  Victor  not 

*  We  do  not  enter  upon  the  controversy  itself,  which  is  admirably 
described  in  Hefele's  History  of  the  Councils. 
t  Eccl,  Hist.,  V.  24. 


124  'ST.  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE, 

to  cut  off  whole  Churches  of  God  who  observed  the 
tradition  of  an  ancient  custom."  Eusebius  quotes  from 
the  letter  of  Irenaeus  in  which  he  points  out  to  Victor 
that  these  paschal  controversies  were  of  ancient  date, 
having  reference  not  only  to  the  day,  but  to  the  whole 
mode  of  celebration,  and  particularly  to  the  duration 
of  the  preceding  fast.  "  And,"  he  goes  on,  ^'  when  the 
blessed  Polycarp  went  to  Rome,  in  the  time  of  Anicetus, 
and  they  had  a  little  difference  among  themselves  like- 
wise respecting  other  matters,  they  immediately  were 
reconciled,  not  disputing  much  with  one  another  on  this 
head.  For  neither  could  Anicetus  persuade  Polycarp 
not  to  observe  what  he  had  always  observed  with  John 
the  disciple  of  the  Lord  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles 
with  whom  he  associated;  and  neither  did  Polycarp 
persuade  Anicetus  to  observe  it,  who  said  that  he  was 
bound  to  maintain  the  practice  of  the  presbyters  before 
him.  Which  things  being  so,  they  communed  with  each 
other,  and  Anicetus,  out  of  respect,  allowed  Polycarp  [to 
celebrate]  the  Eucharist,  and  they  separated  from  each 
other  in  peace."  Comment  on  these  statements  is  quite 
unnecessary  :  in  the  view  of  Irenaeus  these  bishops  dis- 
cussed the  matters  under  dispute  on  a  footing  of  perfect 
equality.  Even  if  they  disagreed,  and  refused  each 
other  communion,  it  was  not  because  the  one  assumed 
a  right  to  dictate  to  the  other. 

Of  the  three  great  Christian  writers  who  lived  nearest 
to  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  TertuUian,  and  Ori- 
gen,  it  is  necessary  to  say  a  few  words ;  and  these  will 
probably  suffice.  Of  Clement  we  have  already  noticed  the 
testimony  adduced  from  his  writings  by  Eusebius  respect- 
ing St.  James  of  Jerusalem.    His  reference  to  the  position 


ST.  IRENJEUS  AND  HIS  AGE.  125 

of  James  shows  the  changing  form  of  the  tradition  respect- 
ing the  apostles  and  their  contemporaries.  According  to 
Hegesippus,  St.  James  "  received  the  government  of  the 
Church  along  with  the  apostles : "  according  to  the  later 
testimony  of  St.  Clement,  he  was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem. 
Both  statements  are  doubtless  true ;  but  they  show  that, 
as  time  advanced,  the  importance  of  Jerusalem  and  its 
bishop  was  beginning  to  be  forgotten.  Clement,  we 
must  remember,  was  the  head  of  the  Catechetical  school 
of  Alexandria,  which  he  is  said  to  have  left  on  account 
of  the  persecution  of  Severus  at  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century.  His  death  is  stated  to  have  occurred 
from  213  to  220.  There  is  nothing  else  of  importance 
in  his  writings  with  reference  to  this  controversy. 

Tertullian  (a.d.  160-240),  as  the  first  great  Christian 
writer  who  makes  use  of  the  Latin  language,  is  of 
obvious  importance  as  a  witness  on  this  question.  Ter- 
tullian, let  us  remark,  is  not  absolutely  trustworthy  in 
his  statement  of  facts;  he  is  fiery,  passionate,  rhetori- 
cal, and  more  anxious  for  an  argument  that  will  tell 
against  an  adversary,  than  for  perfect  accuracy  either  of 
statement  or  of  demonstration.  But  the  nature  of  some 
of  his  subjects  is  such  that  he  could  hardly  have  missed 
a  reference  to  the  supreme  teaching  power  of  the  Roman 
See,  if  he  had  believed  in  it.  In  his  book  "Against 
Heretics  "  {^De  Prescriptionibus)^  he  is  engaged  in  a  work 
similar  to  that  of  Irenaeus,  and  he  has  recourse  to  similar 
modes  of  argument.  In  order  to  convince  his  readers 
of  the  errors  of  heretics,  he  points  out  the  novelty  of 
their  opinions  and  their  entire  want  of  authority  to  teach 
as  they  do.  He,  too,  confronts  these  errors  of  yesterday 
with  the  unchanging  truth  :  he  too  brings  these  perverters 


126  ST.  IRE N^ US  AND  HIS  AGE.  ^ 

of  the  Gospel  face  to  face  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

Like  all  other  early  Christian  writers,  he  gives  a  place 
of  honour  to  St.  Peter  among  the  apostles,  and  to  Rome 
among  the  Churches ;  but  he  knows  nothing  of  a  primacy 
of  jurisdiction  as  belonging  to  either:  apparently  he  has 
never  heard  that  either  is  to  be  considered  the  supreme 
arbiter  of  the  truth  of  Christian  doctrine.  This  will 
sufficiently  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  principal 
passages  bearing  upon  the  subject. 

In  Chapter  xxii.  he  speaks  of  Peter,  *^so  called  be- 
cause upon  him,  as  on  a  rock,  the  Church  was  to  be  built, 
who  obtained  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  in  heaven  and  on 
earth;'*  and  of  St.  John,  "who  was  most  dear  to  the 
Lord,  and  lay  upon  His  breast,"  and  so  forth.  But  there 
is  not  a  word  to  indicate  his  belief  in  any  special  power 
or  authority  as  belonging  to  St.  Peter. 

In  Chapter  xxxii.,  insisting  upon  the  recent  origin 
of  the  heretical  sects,  he  says,  "  If  any  of  those  sects 
venture  to  place  themselves  in  the  Apostolic  age,  so  as 
to  seem  to  be  derived  from  the  apostles,  because  they 
were  under  the  apostles,  we  can  say  to  them  :  *  Show  us 
the  origin  of  your  Churches,  disclose  the  order  of  their 
bishops,  coming  down  by  succession  from  the  beginning, 
so  that  that  bishop  may  have  had  as  his  beginning  and 
predecessor  some  one  of  the  apostles,  or  apostolic  men 
who  remained  with  the  apostles.'  For  in  this  manner 
the  Churches  which  are  truly  apostolic  prove  their  rights ; 
as  the  Church  of  the  Smyrnseans  goes  back  to  Polycarp, 
set  over  it  by  St.  John,  and  that  of  the  Romans  to 
Clement,  ordained  by  Peter."     Mark  two  or  three  things 


ST.  IRENAlUS  and  HIS  AGE,  127 

in  these  words  :  first,  a  possible  inaccuracy  respecting 
the  ordination  of  Saint  Clement,  although  the  subject 
is  one  of  difficulty.  Next,  the  Church  of  Rome  is  men- 
tioned simply  as  one  of  the  Apostolic  Churches.  Again, 
Peter  is  no  more  Bishop  of  Rome  than  John  is  Bishop 
of  Smyrna ;  and  there  is  not  a  hint  of  any  special 
authority  as  belonging  to  Peter  as  the  Roman  Bishop. 

More  important  still  is  the  passage  in  Chapter  xxxvi. 
'^Come  now,^'  he  says,  referring  to  the  same  subject,  ''if 
you  will  better  exercise  your  curiosity  in  the  matter  of 
your  salvation,  go  through  the  Apostolic  Churches,  in 
which  the  chairs  of  the  apostles  still  preside  in  their 
places ;  in  which  their  own  genuine  letters  are  read, 
echoing  the  voice  and  representing  the  face  of  each  one 
of  them.  Is  Achaia  near  you  ?  you  have  Corinth.  If 
you  are  not  far  from  Macedonia,  you  have  Philippi,  you 
have  the  Thessalonians.  If  you  can  cross  to  Asia,  you 
have  Ephesus.  If  you  are  near  Italy,  you  have  Rome, 
whose  authority  extends  to  us  also  [Africans].  How 
happy  is  that  Church  to  which  the  apostles  poured  out 
their  whole  doctrine  with  their  blood !  where  Peter 
was  honoured  with  the  same  death  as  his  Master; 
where  Paul  was  crowned  with  the  martyrdom  of  John 
[the  Baptist];  whence  the  Apostle  John,  after  having 
escaped  unharmed  from  the  boiling  oil,  was  sent  to  an 
island ;  let  us  see  what  it  has  learnt — what  it  has  taught 
— in  agreement  with  the  Churches  of  Africa ; "  and  then 
he  proceeds  to  recapitulate  the  principal  articles  of  the 
faith  which  they  hold  in  common. 

Now,  here  we  find  the  same  tone,  although  perhaps 
less  emphatic,  which  we  met  wath  in  Irenaeus.  The 
true  doctrine  of  Christ  is  that  which  is  found  in  all  the 


128  ST.  IRENjEUS  and  HIS  AGE, 

Churches ;  but  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the  greatest  of 
them  all,  and  the  most  glorious  in  history,  in  position,  in 
character.  Yet  there  is  not  a  hint  that  this  is  the  mother 
and  mistress  of  Churches,  or  that  she  derives  her  queenly 
position  from  her  first  Sovereign  Bishop — the  Prince  of 
the  Apostles.  And  let  it  be  remarked  these  are  the  very 
points  which  require  to  be  proved.  Anything  short  of 
this  does  not  meet  the  necessities  of  the  case.  If  the 
primacy  of  St.  Peter  and  his  successors  be  the  result  of 
ecclesiastical  development,  and  not  a  Divine  ordinance 
which  dates  back  to  the  institution  of  Christ,  then  the 
Roman  position  can  no  longer  be  defended.  Tertullian's 
attitude  is  entirely  compatible  with  what  we  have  found 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  does  not  accord  with  the 
Roman  point  of  view. 

Of  Origen  it  would  hardly  be  necessary  to  say  more 
than  simply  to  mention  that  he  throws  no  further  light 
on  the  question  of  the  primacy ;  but  for  the  fact  that 
Perrone  has  quoted  him  as  a  witness  for  the  infaUibility 
of  the  Pope.  The  passage  which  has  been  thus  mis- 
applied occurs  in  his  commentary  on  the  classical  text 
in  St.  Matthew,  and  must  not  be  passed  over.  Un- 
doubtedly Origen  uses  strong  language  respecting  our 
Lord's  promise  to  St.  Peter,  and  if  it  were  taken  by 
itself  it  might  seem  to  teach  what  Origen  certainly  did 
not  believe.  But  this  impression  is  removed  when  we 
read  the  passage  to  the  end. 

^^ Shall  we  then  dare  to  say,"  he  goes  on,  "that  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  Peter  in  particular; 
but  that  they  will  prevail  against  the  other  apostles  and 
perfect  men  ?  Did  not  that  refer  to  all  of  them  and  to 
each  one  of  them,  which  was  said :  '  The  gates  of  hell 


ST.  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE.  129 

shall  not  prevail  against  it'?  And  this:  'Upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  Church '  ?  Are  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  given  by  the  Lord  to  Peter  alone, 
and  does  no  other  of  the  blessed  ones  receive  them? 
But  if  this  is  common  to  the  others  :  '  I  will  give  unto 
thee  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven/  why  not  also 
all  those  words  which  were  spoken  before,  and  which 
are  quoted  as  being  addressed  to  Peter.  ...  In  the 
Gospel  according  to  John,  the  Saviour,  giving  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  the  disciples  by  breathing  upon  them,  says  : 
'Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,'  and  so  forth."  And  then 
he  proceeds  to  say  that  whoever  shall  say,  as  Peter  did, 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  having 
it  revealed  to  them  not  by  flesh  and  blood,  but  by  their 
Father  in  heaven,  they  will  receive  the  same  commenda- 
tion as  Peter  did.  He  even  adds  that  all  who  imitate 
Christ  will  be  Peters  (Rocks),  as  following  the  spiritual 
Rock,  which  is  Christ.  When  we  remember  that  Perrone 
understands  St.  Paul's  statement,  that  the  faith  of  the 
Romans  has  gone  abroad  into  all  the  world,  to  mean 
that  the  whole  Church  has  accepted  the  Creed  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  we  must  not  be  surprised  at  the  use 
which  he  makes  of  Origen.  This,  at  least,  is  certain, 
that  Origen,  however  great  may  be  the  honour  which  he 
assigns  to  St.  Peter,  concedes  to  him  nothing  in  dignity 
or  in  power  which  he  does  not  equally  assign  to  the 
other  apostles. 

The  passage  from  Irenseus  is  by  far  the  most  im- 
portant of  those  which  belong  to  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  century,  or  the  beginning  of  the  third.  We  may  go 
further,  and  say  that  nothing  so  strong  on  the  Roman  side 
can  be  found  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea.     Yet  those 

I 


I30  ST.  IREN^US  AND  HIS  AGE. 

expressions,  energetic  as  they  are,  do  not  support  the 
Roman  claims,  and  are  quite  compatible  with  our  reading 
of  our  Lord's  words  in  the  Gospel  and  the  apostolic 
history. 

If  we  were  wrong  in  our  interpretation  of  that  remark- 
able passage,  we  should  expect  to  find  something  in  the 
contemporaries  or  immediate  successors  of  the  writer  to 
admonish  us  of  our  error,  and  to  throw  light  upon  its 
true  meaning.  We  find  no  such  correction  or  admonition. 
Clement,  Tertullian,  and  Origen  all  know  of  the  great 
Church  of  Rome;  but  none  of  them  has  recourse  to 
it  as  a  supreme  governor,  as  an  unerring  teacher.  None 
of  them  seems  to  have  heard  of  any  supremacy  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  possessed  by  its  Bishop,  through 
inheritance  from  St.  I'eter. 


131    ) 


CHAPTER  X. 

ST,  CYPRIAN  AND  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

The  germ  of  the  Roman  theory  not  in  the  Bible — Something  only  par- 
tially resembling  this  theory — Need  of  caution — Influence  of  Rome 
useful — Unsuspected,  and  hence  unresisted — Writings  of  St.  Cyprian 
— Apparent  concession  to  modern  Roman  claims — Dr.  Newman's 
statement  of  the  question — The  principal  passage — Interpolated — 
Its  true  meaning — It  teaches  no  more  than  earlier  testimonies — St. 
Peter  the  centre  of  unity,  not  the  ruler  of  the  Church — All  the 
Apostles  equal  in  power — St.  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  Roman  Church 
as  the  See  of  Peter,  but  assigns  no  superiority  of  authority  to  the 
Roman  Bishop — Illustrated  by  the  controversy  on  the  baptism  of 
heretics — African  Councils  act  independently,  and  in  opposition  to 
the  Roman  Bishop — Their  testimonies — Firmilian  of  Csesarea — 
Conclusion. 

If  the  view  which  is  here  presented  of  the  rise  and  growth 
of  the  papal  power  be  the  true  one,  it  is  clear  that  the 
early  authorities  on  the  subject  must  be  examined  with 
great  care.  And  particularly  for  this  reason,  that  we  may 
expect  to  find  passages  in  primitive  Christian  writers 
which  at  first  sight  will  appear  to  lend  support  to  the 
Roman  theory,  but  which,  on  a  nearer  examination,  will 
be  found  to  teach  something  quite  different. 

We  think  we  have  shown  that  even  the  germ  of  the 
papal  claims  does  not  exist  in  the  Bible  or  in  the  first  age 


132  ST,  CYPRIAN  AND 

of  the  Church.  Something  like  it  may  be  found — some- 
thing which,  in  the  course  of  ages,  it  was  not  very  difficult, 
imder  the  circumstances,  so  to  pervert  as  to  make  it 
appear  to  contain  in  its  elements  the  whole  dogma  of 
papal  infallibility  as  promulgated  by  the  Vatican 
Council.  But  the  idea  thus  developed  was  not  there  even 
in  its  most  rudimentary  form  ;  but  a  quite  different  idea. 
This  statement  is  of  the  greatest  importance.  If  the  idea 
of  the  supreme  teaching  and  governing  power  of  the 
Roman  Bishop,  as  the  spiritual  heir  of  the  supreme 
ruler  among  the  Apostles,  even  in  the  most  elementary 
form,  be  found  in  the  Bible,  or  even  in  any  very  early 
Christian  writer,  then  we  must  allow  that  the  Roman 
theory  has  established  the  strongest  case  for  considera- 
tion. Such  a  germ  of  the  theory,  however,  we  are  unable 
to  discover.  We  can  find,  and  we  have  found,  some- 
thing which  looks  like  it,  and  which  on  closerexamination 
proves  to  be  something  entirely  different;  but  a  primacy 
of  jurisdiction,  of  power  and  authority  possessed  by  St. 
Peter,  and  transmitted  by  him  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome, 
we  have  not  found. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  very  early  in  the  history 
of  Christianity,  the  Church  of  Rome  assumed  a  position 
of  unique  importance.  As  the  Capital  of  the  world,  as 
the  scene  of  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul,  Rome 
had  pretensions  which  could  belong  to  no  other  city; 
and  these  pretensions  were  supported  by  the  character 
and  influence  of  many  of  its  bishops.  The  manifest 
utility  of  such  a  centre  led  other  churches  cheerfully  to 
recognize  the  position  of  the  Roman  See  ;  and  this  was 
done  the  more  unreservedly  and  emphatically  from  the 
fact  that,  in  the  earliest  times,  Rome  put  forth  no  claims 


THE  ROMAN  SEE,  133 

which  endangered  the  independence  of  other  churches. 
Expressions  were  often  employed  which  were,  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  used  them,  httle  more  than  com- 
phmentary,  and  which  would  have  been  modified,  if  it 
had  been  thought  that  they  would  be  turned  to  a  mean- 
ing which  was  not  intended.  Yet  for  all  this  we  have 
not  as  yet  found  a  line  written  by  any  Christian  writer 
which  concedes  that  which  is  now  understood  as  the 
papal  claims,  namely,  the  Divine  right  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  to  teach  and  rule  the  Church  with  supreme  autho- 
rity as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter. 

The  bearing  of  these  remarks  on  the  writings  of  St. 
Cyprian,  the  subject  of  the  present  chapter,  will  soon  be 
apparent.  He  is,  in  every  way,  a  most  important  witness, 
from  his  character,  from  his  position,  from  his  being  one 
of  the  three  great  Africans  who  moulded  the  theology 
of  the  Latin  Church,  the  link  between  the  impetuous 
Tertullian  and  the  great  Augustine.  He  was  born  about 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  baptized  about  246, 
made  Bishop  of  Carthage  248,  and  martyred  258. 

It  is  well  known  that  Roman  controversialists  lay  the 
greatest  stress  upon  the  testimony  of  St.  Cyprian  ;  and 
this  is  quite  natural  and  reasonable.  Strong  expressions 
abound  in  his  writings  respecting  the  importance  of  St. 
Peter  in  the  apostolic  body,  and  the  importance  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  as  the  See  of  Peter  (^Cathedra  Petri) 
in  the  Christian  Church.  The  question  is  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  these  expressions.  Do  they  go  to  the  length  of 
the  Roman  claims,  or  do  they  only  bring  out  the  same 
facts  which  we  have  found  other  witnesses  testifying  to? 
This  question  is  diversely  answered,  and  we  must  try  to 
find  out  the  true  answer  to  it,  first,  by  a  careful  scanning 


134  ST.  CYPRIAN  AND 

of  the  passages  adduced,  and  secondly,  by  placing  them 
in  the  light  of  other  statements  by  the  same  writer. 

The  principal  passage,  although  the  idea  which  it  con- 
tains is  illustrated  and  enforced  in  other  writings  from 
the  same  hand,  is  found  in  the  treatise  "  On  the  unity 
of  the  Church  "  {De  unitate  ecdesice),  Chapter  iv.  (Fell,  3, 
4).  Before  quoting  the  words,  it  may  be  useful  to  give 
the  statement  of  the  question  in  the  words  of  Dr.  New- 
man, then  a  clergyman  of  the  English  Church  ;  "^  "Roman 
Catholics,^'  he  says,  "regard  St.  Peter  as  an  actual 
head  of  the  actual  apostles,  not  merely  as  representing 
them,  nor  as  taking  rank  before  them  in  the  system  of 
order,  but  as  really  governing  them.  They  make  St. 
Peter  the  real  centre  of  unity,  we  the  emphatic  image 
and  lesson  of  it;  they  make  St.  Peter's  Chair,  the  Holy 
Roman  See,  a  necessary  instriwient  of  grace,  we  a  sy?nbol; 
we  make  every  bishop  the  real  centre,  they  the  one 
bishop  who  succeeds  in  the  apostle's  seat ;  we  make 
schism  and  separation  from  Christ  lie  in  opposing  one 
bishop,  they  in  opposing  the  Bishop  of  Rome."  The 
contrast  is  presented  somewhat  differently  in  these  words 
from  the  statement  which  we  have  given  as  to  the  ques- 
tion in  dispute,  because  Mr.  Newman  was  limiting  his 
view  to  one  particular  point ;  but  the  real  point  of  diver- 
gence between  the  two  views  is  the  same. 

Let  us  now  give  the  famous  passage,  and  in  domg  so 
we  will  present  it  as  it  appears  in  the  Benedictine  edition 
with  all  its  interpolations,  indicating  the  latter  in  brackets. 
That   these   latter  are  interpolations  there   can  be  no 

*  In  his  translation  of  Irenaeus,  note  on  the  passage,  at  the  end 
of  the  treatise,  De  unitate  (p.  150). 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  135 

reasonable  doubt."^  Baliize,  the  editor  of  the  Benedic- 
tine edition,  omitted  them ;  but  he  died  before  the  book 
was  pubUshed,  and  his  successors  restored  them  while 
they  retained  his  notes,  but  with  some  modifications, 
against  them.  In  this  passage,  then,  St.  Cyprian,  after 
quoting  the  texts  from  St.  Matt.  xvi.  18,  19;  and  St. 
John  XX.  21,  goes  on  :  "  Upon  him  being  one  He  builds 
His  Church  [and  commits  to  him  His  sheep  to  feed]. 
And  though  He  gives  to  all  the  apostles  [after  His 
resurrection]  an  equal  power,  and  says,  *  As  My  Father 
hath  sent  Me,  even  so  send  I  you,'  &c.,  yet  in  order  to 
manifest  unity.  He  has  by  His  own  authority  placed 
the  source  of  the  same  unity  as  beginning  from  one- 
Certainly  the  other  apostles  also  were,  what  Peter  was,  en- 
dued with  an  equal  fellowship  both  of  honour  and  power, 
but  a  commencement  is  made  from  unity  [and  primacy 
is  given  to  Peter  that  the  Church  of  Christ  may  be  set 
forth  as  one,  and  the  See  {Cathedra)  as  one.  And  they 
are  all  shepherds,  yet  the  flock  is  shown  to  be  one,  such 
as  to  be  fed  by  all  the  apostles  with  unanimous  agree- 
ment], that  the  Church  [of  Christ]  may  be  set  forth  as 
one.  .  .  .  He  who  holds  not  this  unity  of  the  Church, 
does  he  think  that  he  holds  the  faith?  He  who  strives 
against  and  resists  the  Church  [he  who  deserts  the  See 
of  Peter,  on  whom  the  Church  is  founded],  is  he  assured 
that  he  is  in  the  Church  ?  '' 

First,  with  respect  to  the  interpolations.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  they  were  originally  marginal  glosses,  in- 
tended to    explain   the   text,  according  to  the  views  of 

*  On  this  subject  see  Friedrich,  Primat  in  der  Kircke,  s.  105  ; 
Newman,  p.  151  ;  and  Hartel's  ed.  of  St.  Cyprian,  p.  xlii.  ss.  and 
212  ss. 


136  ST,  CYPRIAN  AND 

some  particular  reader;  in  which  case  it  would  be  a 
harsh  proceeding  to  accuse  the  original  author,  or  the 
first  transcriber,  of  forgery,  or  of  wilfully  corrupting  the 
text.  Subsequent  editors  cannot  claim  the  same  indul- 
gence ;  and  we  hardly  know  what  to  think  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  Vatican  Council,  who  quote  the  interpolations  as 
part  of  the  text. 

In  considering  the  passage,  our  view  of  its  meaning 
would  not  be  greatly  affected  if  the  whole  of  it,  as  quoted 
above,  were  the  genuine  production  of  St.  Cyprian ;  so 
long  as  no  part  of  it  is  omitted.  We  may,  however, 
leave  the  interpolations  on  one  side;  and  indeed  we 
shall  find  that  they  could  not  be  a  real  part  of  the  pas- 
sage, as  they  represent  views  opposed  to  those  expressed 
elsewhere  by  St.  Cyprian,  as  well  as  by  his  contemporary 
Firniilian.  It  is  quite  true  that  elsewhere  St.  Cyprian 
speaks  of  a  primacy  as  claimed  by  the  Roman  bishop, 
but  he  mentions  it  to  oppose  it. 

Let  us  then  take  the  passage  as  it  is  now  accepted  in 
the  critical  editions  of  editors  Roman  Catholic  and 
Reformed ;  and  what  does  it  teach  more  than  we  have 
found  in  the  New  Testament,  that  St.  Peter  was  the  repre- 
sentative and  the  foremost  man  of  the  apostolic  body? 
It  has  been  said  repeatedly  that  our  Lord  addressed  St. 
Peter  alone,  as  indicating  the  unity  of  the  Church  and 
its  rulers,  not  as  giving  him  privileges  which  were  not 
conferred  upon  the  other  apostles.  And  this  is  exactly 
what  St.  Cyprian  says.  Undoubtedly  the  Church  was, 
in  a  peculiar  sense  of  the  words,  founded  on  St.  Peter : 
he  was  the  first  Christian  preacher  on  the  Day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  he  was  the  means  of  introducing  the  Gentiles 
into  the  Covenant  Body.      But  he  was  not  the  only 


THE  ROMAN  SEE,  137 

foundation-stone.  The  Church  has  no  other  '^  one 
foundation"  but  its  Lord  and  Redeemer;  and  apart 
from  Him  all  others  are  on  an  equaUty  and  are  only 
secondary  substructures.  And  this  is  the  teaching  of 
Cyprian.  It  is  not  merely  that  his  language  respecting 
St.  Peter  ascribes  no  superiority  to  him  in  the  Apostolic 
College ;  he  distinctly  excludes  any  such  supposition  by 
telling  us  that  our  Lord  'Ogives  to  all  the  apostles  an  equal 
power P 

The  passage  now  quoted  may  be  said  to  represent  the 
whole  mind  and  spirit  of  St.  Cyprian  with  respect  to  this 
question.  As,  however,  there  is  here  no  reference  to 
the  Roman  See,  it  is  but  fair  that  some  of  the  passages 
on  this  subject  should  be  adduced,  and  their  meaning 
ascertained. 

In  the  48th  Epistle,  Cyprian,  writing  to  Cornelius,  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  says  that,  in  order  to  protect  Christians 
who  were  going  to  the  metropolis  from  false  teachers,  he 
instructed  them  to  join  the  communion  of  the  Roman  See, 
He  uses  remarkable  language  in  speaking  of  it :  ''We," 
he  says,  "  know  well  that  we  have  exhorted  them  to 
acknowledge  and  hold  to  the  root  and  womb  of  the 
Catholic  Church  "  (ecclesice  catholicce,  matricem  et  radicem). 
If  the  words  stood  by  themselves,  they  would  certainly 
appear  irresistible  on  the  Roman  side.  But  a  little 
further  acquaintance  with  the  modes  of  expression 
current  in  those  days,  enables  us  to  decide  that  they  give 
no  higher  position  to  the  Church  of  Rome  than  that 
which  was  assigned  to  the  Church  of  Carthage.  The 
*'  Catholic  Church,"  as  here  employed,  does  not  mean  the 
whole  Church  throughout  the  world,  but  any  part  or 
diocese  in  the  true  Church,  as  distinguished  from  any 


138  ST.  CYPRIAN  AND 

schismatical  or  heretical  body  that  might  have  been 
formed  in  opposition  or  rivalry.  And  the  Church  which 
was  the  matrix  or  mother  Church  was  that  which  could 
trace  back  its  pedigree  to  an  apostle  or  an  apostolic 
man. 

In  this  sense  such  churches  are  described  by  Tertullian, 
in  the  w^ork  from  which  we  have  quoted  {De  prcescript. 
c.  2i),  as  "original  and  mother  Churches"  {ecdesice 
matrices  et  originaks).  And  this  interpretation  of  St. 
Cyprian's  language  is  verified  by  the  use  of  it  in  another 
place  (Ep.  71),  where,  speaking  of  some  members  of  the 
Church  who  had  left  his  communion  and  joined  the 
heretics,  but  had  afterwards  returned,  he  says  :  *^  After- 
wards, acknowledging  their  sin,  and  laying  aside  their 
error,  they  return  to  the  truth  and  to  their  mother  "  {ad 
veritatem  et  matricem).  According  to  this  view,  every 
particular  diocese  is  a  "  Catholic  Church,"  as  representing 
the  whole,  and  inasmuch  as  each  individual  Church,  in 
its  unity,  possesses  through  its  one  bishop  all  the 
essential  attributes  of  the  Church  instituted  by  Christ. 
It  is  in  this  sense  that  Cyprian  remarks  in  another  letter 
to  Bishop  Cornelius  (Ep.  49),  that  certain  persons  from 
Rome  who  had  been  misled  into  heresy  and  schism,  and 
had  returned  to  Catholic  unity,  had  been  restored  on 
confessing  the  Catholic  Bishop  of  Rome.  "  We,"  they 
say — St.  Cyprian  tells  Cornelius  that  he  w^as  setting  down 
their  own  words,  "  acknowledge  Cornelius  bishop  of  the 
most  holy  Catholic  Church,  chosen  by  God  Almighty  and 
Christ  our  Lord.  .  .  .  For  we  are  not  ignorant  that  there 
is  one  God,  one  Christ  the  Lord,  whom  we  confess, 
one  Holy  Ghost,  that  there  should  be  one  bishop  in  the 
Catholic  Church."    As  Newman  remarks  on  the  passage, 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  139 

"each  particular  Church  being  the  miniature  of  the 
whole,  each  bishop  the  representative  of  Christ,  the  Chief 
Bishop.  .  .  .  Whoever,  then,  set  up  a  bishop  in  any  See 
where  one  was  already,  broke  the  oneness  of  the  whole 
episcopate."  There  is  not  in  St.  Cyprian's  language  a 
trace  of  the  notion  that  Cornelius  was  universal  bishop 
of  the  Church,  and  that  all  other  bishops  were  his  vicars, 
in  accordance  with  the  papal  theory.  He  was  the  duly 
chosen  bishop  in  the  succession  of  the  Roman  Church, 
which  is  in  that  place  the  representative  of  the  universal 
Church,  inasmuch  as  it  has  regularly  received,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  divine  institution,  its  one  bishop. 

But  there  are  other  passages  in  which  St.  Cyprian  has 
been  thought  to  confess  a  Primacy  of  Rome.  Thus  in 
the  55th  (52)  Epistle  (to  Antonianus),  he  speaks  of  the 
Roman  See  as  the  '*  Place  of  Peter  "  {locus  Petri)^  and 
in  the  59th  (55)  Epistle  (to  Cornelius),  speaking  of  cer- 
tain heretics  which  had  set  up  a  Conventicle  of  their 
own,  he  says,  they  "  dare  to  set  sail,  and  to  carry  letters 
from  schismatic  and  profane  persons  to  the  chair  of 
Peter,  and  to  the  principal  Church,  whence  the  unity  of 
the  Priesthood  took  its  rise."  {Ad  Petri  Caihedram  atque 
ad  ecdesiam  principalem^  unde  unit  as  sacerdotalis  exorta 
est.) 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  the  advocates  of  the  papal 
claims  should  fasten  upon  expressions  like  these  (and 
this  is  the  strongest  of  them  all)  and  adduce  them  to 
prove  the  primacy  of  the  Pope.  But  even  as  they  stand, 
they  furnish  no  such  proof;  and  we  know  that  they  bore 
no  such  meaning  in  the  mouth  of  St.  Cyprian.  Let  us 
see  what  they  exactly  tell  us  of  the  opinions  of  the  writer. 
In  the  first  place,  they  tell  us  that  Cyprian  regarded  St. 


140  ST.  CYPRIAN  AMD 

Peter  as  the  founder  of  the  Roman  Church.  In  this  he 
only  followed  Tertullian,  whom  he  confessed  as  his 
"  master."  *  He  does  not  speak  of  Peter  as  Bishop 
of  Rome,  any  more  than  Tertullian  had  done ;  but  he 
evidently  does  regard  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter.  But  this  is  not  to  give  to  the  Roman 
bishop  the  primacy  of  the  Christian  Church ;  for  he  had 
not  assigned  to  St.  Peter  that  place  among  the  apostles. 
Indeed  he  had  said  the  very  reverse  :  he  had  said  that 
Christ  made  all  the  apostles  equal ;  and  thus  he  would 
here  assert  no  superiority  as  belonging  to  the  Roman 
bishop ;  and  we  know,  from  other  parts  of  his  writings, 
that  he  allowed  him  no  superiority.  All  that  he  had 
said  of  St.  Peter  was  that  he  was  the  representative,  and, 
so  to  speak,  the  centre  of  unity;  and  this  is  what  he 
says  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  The  whole  letter  from 
which  the  extract  is  taken  shows  that  he  paid  no  special 
deference  to  the  judgment  of  the  Roman  bishop.  He 
is  writing  of  some  heretics  who  had  gone  to  Rome,  and 
had  received  letters  which  might  induce  the  Bishop 
Cornelius  to  receive  them  into  communion.  Does  he 
ask  the  occupant  of  the  chair  of  Peter  to  consider  the 
case,  to  examine  these  schismatics,  and  find  out  whether 
they  are  in  error?  On  the  contrary,  he  tells  him  that 
there  is  no  need  to  do  anything  of  the  kind.  "  Already,'' 
he  says,  *'  has  their  cause  been  heard  :  already  has  sen- 
tence been  given  concerning  them  ; "  and  he  as  good  as 
intimates  that  it  w^ould  be  improper  to  reopen  the  case. 
Indeed,  there  is  no  hint  anywhere  that  he  regards  him  as 
more  than  his  fellow-bishop, — he  calls  him  ^'  brother  and 
colleague" — although  he  occupies  a  more  importantthrone. 

*His  words  respecting  Tertullian  are  well  known  :  Da  magistrum. 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  141 

The  most  remarkable  illustration  of  this  sense  of  in- 
dependence and  denial  of  any  authority  as  belonging  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  is  found  in  the  controversy  which 
arose  at  this  time  respecting  the  rebaptism  of  heretics. 
The  controversy  in  its  details  belongs  to  general  Church 
History  and  to  the  History  of  the  Councils.  On  the 
general  question  the  Roman  Bishop  Stephen,  who  suc- 
ceeded Cornelius,  was  undoubtedly  in  the  right,  as  the 
Church  has  since  decided ;  but  that  is  not  the  question. 
It  is  quite  clear,  from  the  whole  history  of  the  contro- 
versy, that  the  African  bishops  considered  that  they  had 
a  perfect  right  to  settle  the  matter  for  themselves,  and 
that  neither  the  Bishop  of  Rome  nor  any  other  bishop 
had  the  least  right  to  interfere  with  them. 

It  has  been  customary  with  controversialists  on  the 
Roman  side  to  represent  that  Cyprian  and  his  brethren 
and  suffragans  did  concede  a  superiority  to  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  were  guilty  of  a  kind  of  rebellion  in 
quarrelling  with  Bishop  Stephen  on  this  question.  We 
have  seen  that  the  passages  to  which  they  appeal  in 
no  way  support  the  opinion  that  the  superior  authority 
of  the  Roman  See  was  conceded ;  and  the  whole  history 
of  the  controversy  shows  most  clearly  that  the  African 
bishops  regarded  Stephen  as  guilty  of  unlawful  inter- 
ference, and  were  conscious  of  no  offence  on  their  part 
in  resisting  and  resenting  his  dictation.  The  leader  of 
the  Africans  throughout  was  Cyprian.  He  had  decided 
that  baptism  by  heretics  was  invalid,  on  the  ground  that 
they  could  not  give  what  they  did  not  possess.  Under 
his  influence  the  same  judgment  was  pronounced  by  a 
synod  at  Carthage,  a.d.  255.  At  this  synod  thirty-one 
bishops  were  present. 


142  ST.  CYPRIAN  AND 

As  the  question  was  still  agitated,  Cyprian  convened 
a  second  and  greater  synod  in  the  following  year,  in 
which  no  fewer  than  seventy-one  bishops  took  part. 
The  decision  was  the  same,  and  was  announced  by 
Cyprian  on  behalf  of  the  Council  to  Bishop  Stephen  in 
a  synodal  letter  (Ep.  72).  The  close  of  the  letter  is 
remarkable  alike  for  its  independence  and  its  moderation. 
They  tell  the  Bishop  of  Rome  what  they  have  decided ; 
they  hope  he  may  be  of  the  same  opinion  ;  but  they 
submit  nothing  to  his  arbitration,  and  they  ask  for  no 
confirmation  at  his  hand  of  their  proceedings.  They 
intimate  that  some  do  not  agree  with  them,  but  this 
disagreement  has  produced  no  discord ;  they  wish  to  do 
violence  to  no  one's  convictions,  nor  do  they  lay  down 
any  universal  law;  since  every  bishop  has  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  his  Church  his  own  freedom  of  decision 
for  which  he  shall  give  account  to  God.  The  whole 
document  is  most  valuable  :  it  is  the  calm  utterance  of 
men  who  are  not  in  the  least  conscious  that  they  are 
violating  any  rule  or  practice  of  the  Church. 

The  answer  of  Stephen  is  lost;  but  we  may  judge  of 
its  character  from  the  expressions  of  Cyprian  and  Fir- 
milian  respecting  it,  and  some  passages  from  it  are 
preserved  in  their  letters.  It  seems  that  the  Roman 
Bishop  had  condemned  the  decisions  of  the  synod  of 
Carthage  as  contrary  to  the  ^'custom"  of  his  own  Church; 
and  this  he  had  done  with  no  little  violence,  at  the  same 
time  denouncing  Cyprian  as  *'a  false  Christ,  a  false 
apostle,  and  a  deceitful  worker"  (Ep.  75).  It  was 
the  old  imperial  and  imperious  instinct  of  Rome  which 
could  brook  no  departure  from  its  own  customs :  the 
same  spirit  which  in  a  much  milder  form,  had  spoken 


THE  ROMAN  SEE,  143 

in  St.  Clement's  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  which  in  a 
later  and  more  offensive  form  had  led  Bishop  Victor  to 
excommunicate  the  Eastern  Churches  who  followed  a 
different  custom  in  the  keeping  of  Easter.  Stephen 
too  declared  that  he  could  not  hold  communion  with 
the  African  bishops  if  they  did  not  retrace  their  steps'; 
and  he  made  known  the  same  decision,  with  no  less 
violence  of  language  to  some  Asiatic  Churches  which 
had  taken  Cyprian's  view  of  the  question. 

Cyprian,  in  no  way  daunted,  called  a  third  synod,  pro- 
bably in  the  same  year,"^  at  which  no  fewer  than  eighty- 
seven  bishops  were  present.  The  bishops  regarded 
themselves  as  placed  under  no  restraint  by  the  adverse 
judgment  of  their  brother  at  Rome.  Cyprian  even 
went  so  far  as  to  denounce  his  tyranny  and  to  deride 
his  pretensions.  There  is  not  a  hint  anywhere  of  the 
opinion  that  Stephen  had  merely  exercised  his  authority 
in  a  harsh  and  arbitrary  manner ;  no  kind  of  authority 
was  for  an  instant  conceded  to  him.  Cyprian,  who  pre- 
sided at  all  these  synods,  after  reading  a  letter  from 
Jubaianus  in  which  he  declared  his  agreement  with  him, 
asked  that  every  bishop  present  should  freely  express 
his  view  on  the  subject  of  the  baptism  of  heretics,  so 
that  no  one  should  condemn  or  excommunicate  any  one 
else  who  might  happen  to  be  of  a  different  opinion ; 
adding  emphatically  and  significantly  that  no  one  should 
set  himself  up  as  a  bishop  of  bishops  {episcopus  episco- 
porum),  and  by  tyrannical  terrorism  force  his  colleagues 
to  surrender  their  own  freedom  of  judgmentt 

*  So  Hefele  thinks.  See  his  ** History  of  the  Councils"  on  the 
whole  subject,  vol.  i.  §  6. 

t  Given  in  Cyprian's  works,  at  the  head  of  the  Sententice  Episco* 
porum  de  hcsreticis  baptizandis. 


144  ST.  CYPRIAN  AND 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  last  remarks  were 
directed  against  Bishop  Stephen  of  Rome  :  the  use  of 
the  phrase  Episcopus  episcoporiim  would  alone  prove  the 
allusion,  as  this  was  the  epithet  which  his  "Master'' 
Tertullian  had  sarcastically  bestowed  upon  the  Roman 
bishop.  The  opinions  of  the  bishops  are  preserved ; 
Cyprian  gave  his  own  last ;  and  the  decision  of  the 
Council  was  the  same  as  on  the  former  occasions.  Hefele 
thinks  that  it  was  after  this  synod,  and  not  the  second, 
that  Stephen  showed  his  *' great  unfriendliness  towards 
the  Africans."  There  are  some  difficulties  both  ways, 
and  the  matter  is  of  little  practical  importance ;  but  it 
would  certainly  seem  that  the  utterances  of  the  bishops 
at  the  third  synod  were  intended  as  a  reply  to  Stephen's 
letter.  One  thing,  however,  is  certain,  that,  as  the  Afri- 
can bishops  had  acted  with  the  most  perfect  freedom, 
never  for  a  moment  regarding  the  approval  of  Stephen 
as  necessary,  so  they  did  not  regard  his  displeasure  as  a 
reason  for  changing  their  opinions.  It  has  been  said  by 
a  Roman  writer  (Alzog)  that  Cyprian  confessed  the 
primacy  of  the  Roman  See.  The  word  occurs  in  the 
spurious  passage  already  quoted  :  it  is  also  found  in  one 
of  his  epistles  (71,  to  Quintus),  but  only  to  reject  it;  and 
in  the  same  letter  he  utterly  refuses  to  have  any  regard 
for  the  "  custom "  which  Stephen  had  pleaded,  saying 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  right  reason  and  not  of  custom 
(non  est  autem  de  consuetudine  prcescribendum,  sed  ratione 
vincendu77i).  The  other  bishops  present  at  the  Council 
take  entirely  the  same  line,  one  after  another  indirectly 
rebuking  Stephen  and  condemning  his  opinion.  Thus 
Fortunatus  of  Thuccaboris  is  represented  as  saying :  * 
*  Lent,  episc,  17. 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  145 

"Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  .  .  .  founded  the  Church  upon 
Peter,  not  upon  heresy."  Libosus  of  Vaga  "^  said  :  "  Our 
Lord  in  the  Gospel  says  :  ^  I  am  the  truth/  He  did  not 
say  :  *  I  am  the  custom  '  {Ego  sum,  inqmf,  Veritas.  Non 
dixit:  Ego  sum  consuetudo)^  This  was  evidently  a 
sarcastic  reference  to  the  Roman  consueiudo  which  had 
been  urged  by  Stephen. 

It  is  of  no  avail  to  say  that  these  bishops  were  re- 
belling against  their  head,  or  that  they  were  driven  to 
resist  the  authority  of  the  Roman  See  by  the  harshness 
of  Stephen  in  exercising  it.  There  is  no  question 
of  authority  from  beginning  to  end.  The  bishops  are 
consciously  free  and  independent  of  all  external  con- 
trol. They  resent  the  interference  of  Stephen,  and  the 
arguments  which  he  seems  to  have  employed ;  but  it 
was  not  his  manner  of  dictation  that  they  disliked,  it 
was  the  fact  of  his  presuming  to  censure  his  fellow- 
bishops  and  equals. 

Still  more  energetic  was  the  protest  of  an  Asiatic 
bishop,  Firmilian  of  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia.  The 
African  decrees  had  been  transmitted  to  the  bishops  of 
Asia  Minor,  who  had  concurred  in  them,  and  thereby 
had  drawn  down  the  wrath  of  Stephen  upon  themselves. 
Firmilian's  view  is  expressed  in  a  letter  to  Cyprian  (Ep. 
75),  and  he  certainly  does  not  spare  the  Roman  bishop; 
but  he  says,  "  Let  these  acts  of  Stephen's  be  passed  over, 
lest,  while  we  remember  his  audacity  and  hisolence,  we 
bring  upon  ourselves  a  longer  sorrow  on  account  of  the 
things  which  have  been  wickedly  done  by  him  "  (cap.  3) ; 
and  he  speaks  of  his  alleged  apostolic  tradition  or  custom 
as  a  folly  and  a  defaming  of  Peter  and  Paul  1 
*  Lent,  episc.  30. 

K 


146  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

From  Firmilian,  too,  we  learn  that  Stephen  had  ap- 
pealed to  his  succession  from  Peter  and  to  an  authority 
therewith  connected ;  but  those  pretensions  only  excite 
his  indignation  :  "  I  am  justly  indignant,"  he  says,  "  at  this 
ope7i  and  7}ianif est  folly  of  Stephen,  that  he  who  boasts  of 
the  place  of  his  episcopate,  and  contends  that  he  holds 
the  succession  of  Peter,  upon  whom  the  foundations  of 
the  Church  were  placed,  should  bring  in  many  other 
rocks  {petras),  and  set  up  new  buildings  of  many 
churches"  (cap.  17).  Consequently,  he  is  so  far  from 
being  alarmed  by  threats  of  excommunication,  that  he 
regards  this  as  a  great  sin,  and  the  act  of  a  schismatic, 
who  apostatizes  from  ecclesiastical  unity,  and  who  in  his 
ignorance  and  presumption  cuts  off  himself,  and  not  his 
brethren,  from  the  Church  "^  (cap.  24). 

We  have  not  consciously  misrepresented  the  facts 
which  the  times  of  Cyprian  present  for  our  consideration, 
nor  the  words  which  he  has  written ;  and  what  is  their 
testimony  ?  Great  and  honourable  things,  no  doubt,  are 
said  of  Peter,  of  the  See  of  Peter,  and  of  Rome.  But 
there  is  not  a  word  in  all  the  writings  of  St.  Cyprian 
which  assigns  any  authority  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  over 
other  bishops,  and  his  whole  life  and  conduct  contradict 
the  notion  that  he  entertained  any  such  view  of  the 
position  of  the  occupant  of  Peter^s  chair.  In  short,  the 
peculiar  claims  of  the  Papacy,  as  they  were  understood 
in  later  times,  are  still  wholly  unknown  in  the  Christian 
Church. 

*  Vide  qua  inperitia  tu  reprehendere  audeas  eos  qui  contra 
mendacium  pro  veritate  nituntur  ,  ,  ,  excidisti  enim  te  ipsum,  noli 
te  fallere. 


{    w    ) 


CHAPTER   XL 

TUB   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA.  ' 

Importance  of  the  Nicene  Council — Bearing  on  the  Papal  claims — The 
position,  circumstances,  authority  of  the  Council — Questions  de- 
manding solution — (i)  By  whom'was  the  Council  convoked? — By  the 
Emperor,  as  all  agree — Was  Pope  Silvester  specially  consulted?— 
Bishop  Hefele's  argument — Insufficient — Dr.  Friedrich's  remarks — 
(2)  Who  presided  over  the  Council? — Generally  Bishop  Hosius  of 
Corduba — Was  he  Papal  Legate  ? — No  evidence  of  this — Shown  by 
a  statement  of  the  facts — (3)  Were  the  decrees  of  the  Council  con- 
firmed by  the  Pope  ? — Hefele's  arguments  in  support  of  this  theory 
— No  evidence  of  such  confirmation — Testimony  of  the  Synod  itself : 
Canons  6  and  7 — The  precedence  of  the-  Sees  referred  to  custom — 
Explanations — Interpolations — The  Synod  knew  nothing  of  the 
Papal  supremacy—Conclusion, 

It  is  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  period  at  which  it  was  held  was  one  of  the  most 
momentous.  Christianity  had  been  but  lately  recog- 
nized by  the  Roman  Empire.  The  principal  subject 
to  be  considered  was  the  greatest  which  could  occupy 
the  thoughts  of  those  who  professed  themselves  Chris- 
tians— no  less  a  matter  than  to  determine  whether  the 
Church  was  to  regard  her  Lord  as  a  mere  man,  or  as 
very  God.  To  this  we  must  add  the  fact  of  its  accept- 
ance not  only  by  all  subsequent  ecclesiastical  authority, 


148  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICJEIA, 

but,  generally  speaking,  by  the  universal  Christian  con- 
science. 

Every  authority  looks  back  to  the  Council  of  Nicsea. 
It  is  accepted  by  the  Popes  of  every  age  and  the  Councils 
of  every  land.  A  teacher  who  contradicts  its  main  doc- 
trinal utterances  is  not  regarded  as  a  Christian  in  the 
accepted  sense  of  that  word.  The  decisions  of  the 
Council  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  Christian  doctrine  and 
of  all  ecclesiastical  law.  These  are  not  private  opinions, 
they  are  universally  accepted  facts. 

The  important  bearing  of  this  Council  on  the  position 
of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  can  be  ignored  by  no  one  who  has 
a  clear  discernment  of  the  point  under  consideration.  Is 
the  Roman  Bishop  by  Divine  right  supreme  teacher  and 
governor  of  the  whole  Christian  Churcli  ?  If  he  is,  and 
if  he  was  from  the  beginning  known  to  be  such,  this 
position  of  his  must,  in  some  way  or  other,  be  recognized 
by  this  great  Council.  In  this  assembly  we  have  the 
Church  of  Christ  by  its  representatives  solemnly  con- 
sidering the  greatest  theme  which  can  be  the  object  of 
its  contemplation,  the  Person  of  its  Founder,  the  true 
character  of  its  Head.  Under  what  conditions  is  that 
assembly  held  ?  By  whose  authority  is  it  convoked  ? 
Who  presides  over  its  deliberations?  Is  it  perfectly 
free  in  its  discussions,  or  is  there  a  reference,  open  or 
tacit,  to  some  other  authority  which  may  set  aside  its 
decisions  or  require  their  revision?  Finally,  when  it 
has  formulated  its  decrees,  do  they  need  confirmation  by 
any  authority  external  to  the  Council ;  and,  if  so,  of  what 
nature  is  that  authority  ? 

These  are  questions  of  fundamental  and  incalculable 
importance;  and  they  have  often  been  discussed.     So 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A,  149 

long  as  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  in  their  present 
form,  are  put  forth  by  one  side  and  resisted  by  the  other, 
so  long  must  these  questions  continue  to  be  discussed, 
for  they  are  vital.  Let  us  look  at  them  in  their  relation 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  then  we  shall  understand 
what  the  defenders  of  the  Papal  power  must  be  required 
to  prove. 

These,  then,  are  the  questions  which  we  have  to  ask : 
(i.)  Had  the  Bishop  of  Rome  any  part  in  the  convocation 
of  the  Synod  of  Nicaea  ?  We  know  that  it  was  actually 
called  together  by  the  Emperor  Constantine ;  but  we 
wish  to  know  whether  that  was  done  with  the  concurrence 
and  co-operation  of  the  Pope."^  (2.)  Was  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  in  any  sense,  the  President  of  the  Council,  and 
was  he  supposed  to  have  any  right  to  control  its  delibera- 
tions? Bishop  Hosius  of  Corduba  was  generally  its 
actual  president :  did  he  in  any  sense  represent  the  Pope 
in  that  position?  (3.)  Were  the  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Nicsea  confirmed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  and  were 
they  regarded  as  needing  that  confirmation,  in  order  to 
give  them  authority  over  the  Church  ?  These  are,  as  we 
have  said,  vital  questions,  and  they  must  be  considered 
fairly  and  seriously.  We  must  be  contented  with  reason- 
able and  probable  evidence  on  the  subject;  not  asking 
for  more  than  this,  yet  not  being  contented  with  less. 
We  will  consider  these  three  questions  in  succession. 

I.  The  Convocation  of  the  Council. 

On  this  subject,  to  ensure  accuracy  and  fairness,  we 
will  quote  the  words  of  Hefele  in  his  "  History  of  the 


*  This  name  was  not  for  long  after  the  Council  of  Nicasa  restricted 
to  the  Bishops  of  Rome. 


ISO  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A. 

Councils"  (§  24) :  "*  "  It  is  impossible  to  determine 
whether  the  Emperor  Constantine  acted  only  in  his  own 
name,  or  in  concert  with  the  Pope,  in  assembHng  the 
bishops.  Eusebius  and  the  most  ancient  documents 
speak  only  of  the  Emperor's  part  in  the  Council,  without, 
however,  a  positive  denial  of  the  participation  of  the  Pope. 
The  Sixth  CEcumenical  Synod,  v/hich  took  place  in  680, 
says,  on  the  contrary :  *  Arius  arose  as  an  adversary  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  Constantine  and  Silvester 
immediately  assembled  (ovnXiyov)  the  great  synod  at 
Nicsea.'  The  Pontifical  of  Damasus  affirms  the  same 
fact.  From  that  time  the  opinion  that  the  Emperor  and 
the  Pope  had  agreed  together  to  assemble  the  Council 
became  more  and  more  general;  and  with  whatever 
vivacity  certain  Protestant  authors  may  have  arrayed 
themselves  against  this  supposition,  it  certainly  seems 
probable  that  in  such  an  important  measure  the  Emperor 
would  have  thought  it  necessary  not  to  act  without  the 
consent  and  co-operation  of  him  who  was  recognized  as 
the  first  bishop  of  Christendom.  Let  us  add  that  Rufinus 
had  already  expressly  said  that  the  Emperor  assembled 
the  synod  ex  sacerdotum  senientia  (in  accordance  with 
the  opinion  of  the  bishops).  If  he  consulted  several 
bishops  upon  the  measure  which  he  had  in  view,  he 
certainly  would  have  taken  the  advice  of  the  first  among 
them ;  and  the  part  of  the  latter  in  the  convocation  of 
the  Council  must  certainly  have  been  more  considerable 
than  that  of  the  other  bishops,  or  the  Sixth  Council 
would  doubtless  have  expressed  itself  in  another  way. 
The  testimony  of  this  Council  is  here  of  real  importance. 
If  it  had  been  held  in  the  West,  or  even  at  Rome,  what 
*  Vol.  i.  p.  269  (Engl.  Ed.) 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE  A.  151 

it  says  might  appear  suspicious  to  some  critics ;  but  it 
took  place  at  Constantinople,  at  a  period  when  the 
bishops  of  this  city  were  beginning  to  be  rivals  to  those 
of  Rome.  The  Greeks  formed  greatly  the  majority  of 
the  members  of  the  Council,  and  consequently  their 
testimony  in  favour  of  Rome,  more  especially  in  favour 
of  the  co-operation  of  Silvester,  is  very  important.'' 

Bishop  Hefele  is  a  writer  of  known  learning,  modera- 
tion, and  candour  j  and  his  statements  are  worthy  of 
respectful  consideration,  more  especially  as  he  confesses 
that  "it  is  impossible  to  determine"  the  question  which 
he  argues.  It  is  for  us  to  give  all  due  weight  to  his 
arguments,  and  to  consider  whether  he  makes  out  any- 
thing like  a  probable  case  for  the  participation  of  the 
Pope  in  the  summoning  of  the  Nicene  Council. 

Assuredly  our  first  impression  is  one  of  astonishment 
that  there  should  be  so  little  evidence  of  any  special 
deference  shown  towards  the  Bishop  of  Rome  on  an 
occasion  of  such  world-wide  importance.  Taking  the 
view  of  his  position  which  has  been  presented  in  these 
pages,  we  should  have  found  it  quite  natural  that  he 
should  be  consulted  before  such  an  assembly  was 
summoned.  We  should  have  been  under  no  necessity 
of  accepting  the  modern  Roman  theory,  even  if  it  had 
been  shown  that  a  Pope  had  presided  at  Nicaea  or  the 
representative  of  a  Pope.  But  none  of  these  things  can 
be  shown,  or  even  made  probable. 

If,  however,  we  assume  for  a  moment  the  Roman 
point  of  view,  it  is  utterly  incomprehensible  that  there 
should  not  be  clear  evidence  of  the  influence  of  the  Pope 
on  this  great  Council.  Yet  evidence  there  is  none,  in  the 
true  sense  of  that  word.     We  have  given  the  statement 


152  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A. 

of  the  Roman  argument  in  the  words  of  the  most  learned 
Roman  historian  of  the  Councils.  We  give  the  answer  in 
the  words  of  Friedrich,  a  hardly  less  learned  old  Catholic  : 

^^The  only  positive  result  is,  however/'  he  says,* 
^^that  Rufinust  tells  us  that  Constantine  convoked  the 
Council  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the  bishops  {ex 
sacerdotum  sefitefiHa).  It  is,  therefore,  not  improbable  that 
he  consulted  the  Bishop  of  the  chief  city  of  the  Empire. 
But  from  the  statement  of  Rufinus  it  is  quite  clear 
that  neither  Constantine  nor  himself  attributed  decisive 
importance  to  the  individual  judgment  of  the  Roman 
Bishop,  even  if  he  was  consulted.  If  Rufinus  had 
known  anything  of  the  authority  ascribed  in  later  times 
to  the  Roman  Bishop  in  the  convoking  of  CEcumenical 
Councils,  he  would  have  expressed  it  in  a  decisive  and 
unambiguous  manner." 

Hefele  admits  that  the  authority  of  the  Liber  Pontifi- 
calls  must  "  be  considered  of  slight  value,''  but  he  insists 
that  the  "importance"  of  that  of  the  Sixth  Council  "must 
be  admitted  "  (1.  c.  p.  9).  On  this  statement  Friedrich  re- 
marks, "  that  it  is  somewhat  hazardous  to  bring  forward 
so  late  a  testimony  to  an  event  dating  more  than  three 
hundred  years  back,  when  there  is  no  other  intermediate 
authority  which  can  be  adduced.  To  derive  the  importance 
of  the  testimony  from  the  impartiality  of  a  synod  which  is, 
for  the  most  part,  Greek,  is  no  less  hazardous ;  since  the 
Greeks  never  attached  to  the  co-operation  of  the  Roman 
Bishop,  in  the  convoking  of  an  CEcumenical  Council,  the 
importance  which  was  afterwards  attributed  to  it  in  the 
West.     Moreover,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  Roman  Bishops 

*  Zur  dltesten  Geschichte  des  Prtmats,  §  135  P^ge  135. 
t  Rufinus  is  practically  contemporaneous  with  Augustine. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A,  153 

co-operated  in  the  summoning  of  the  Third  and  Fourth 
GEcumenical  Synods  ;  so  that  the  statement  of  the  sixth 
was  a  very  natural  inference  with  reference  to  the  first. 
But  this  can  give  no  historical  value  to  its  statement 
respecting  the  Council  of  Nicaea." 

It  would  be  useless  to  continue  this  controversy. 
There  is,  in  fact,  no  evidence  at  all  which  any  person 
or  party  would  accept  in  favour  of  any  fact  or  opinion 
which  they  called  in  question,  which  can  be  adduced  to 
prove  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  any  part  whatever 
in  the  convoking  of  this  Council.  If  the  contemporaries 
of  Silvester  had  believed  anything  of  the  claims  which 
are  now  brought  forward  on  behalf  of  the  Roman  Bishop, 
this  fact  would  be  absolutely  uninteUigible. 

2.  The  Presidency  of  the  Council. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  ordinary  President  of  the 
Nicene  Council  was  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Corduba ;  but  it 
has  been  said  that  he  was  the  legate  of  the  Pope^  the 
representative  of  Bishop  Silvester.     Was  this  the  case  ? 

On  this  Bishop  Hefele  remarks  (1.  c.  p.  270) :  "  As  the 
presidency  of  a  diocesan  synod  belongs  to  the  bishop, 
of  a  provincial  synod  to  the  metropolitan,  of  a  national 
to  the  primate  or  patriarch,  so,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  the  presidency  of  an  GEcumenical  Council  belongs 
to  the  supreme  ruler  of  the  whole  Church — to  the 
Pope  ;  and  this  is  so  clear,  that  the  most  violent  partisans 
of  the  episcopal  system  who  assign  to  the  Pope  only  a 
primacy  of  honour  {primatus  honoris)^  yet  do  not  in  the 
least  impugn  his  right  to  preside  at  GEcumenical  Synods." 

This  is  a  very  admirable  statement  of  the  case,  and  we 
commend  it  to  the  consideration  of  our  readers.  As  we 
have  said,  it  would  occasion  us  no  perplexity  or  surprise, 


154  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A, 

if  we  found  the  Bishop  of  Rome  presiding,  or  his  legate 
for  him,  at  Nicaea.  That  this  is  not  found  is  utterly 
incompatible  with  tli^e  Roman  claims,  and  shows  con- 
clusively that  no  great  importance  was  attached  to  that 
modest  precedence  which  we  have  conceded  to  the 
Bishop  of  the  Imperial  City. 

"The  solution  of  the  question  respecting  the  pre- 
sidency of  the  First  CEcumenical  Council,"  says  Hefele,"is 
not  without  difficulty  ;  and  the  greatest  acumen  has  been 
displayed,  and  the  most  venturesome  conjectures  have 
been  made,  in  order  to  prove  that  in  the  First  Council, 
at  any  rate,  the  Pope  was  not  the  President."  It  would 
be  too  long,  and  it  is  not  necessary,  to  quote  the  whole 
argument  of  Hefele,  to  prove  that  Hosius  was  the  Pope's 
legate ;  but  the  facts  on  both  sides  may  be  easily  stated. 

In  the  first  place,  he  disposes  of  the  argument  that 
the  Emperor  Constantine  was  president,  and  rightly;  for 
the  Emperor  did  not  pretend  to  preside,  but  after  his 
opening  speech,  as  Eusebius  tells  us,  "  made  way  for  the 
presidents  of  the  synod.''''  Hefele  remarks  quite  truly  that 
"  Constantine  was  simply  the  honorary  president,  as  the 
Emperor  Marcian  was,  subsequently,  in  the  sixth  session 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon;"  and  with  equal  truth  he 
remarks,  "it  would  appear  that  there  were  several  pre- 
sidents." 

It  is,  however,  generally  agreed  that  the  leading  man, 
and  the  one  who  commonly  presided  over  the  Council, 
was  Hosius  of  Corduba.  Athanasius,  who  was  present, 
says  of  him:  "Of  what  synod  was  he  not  president?" 
And  Socrates  places  him  first  in  the  list  of  the  principal 
members  of  the  Council ;  while  his  name  appears  at  the 
head  of  all  the  subscribing  bishops.     "  In  every  copy, 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A,  155 

without  one  exception,  Hosius  and  the  two  Roman  priests 
sign  the  first,  and  afiei'  them  Alexander,  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  signs  "  (Hefele),  and  then  follow  the  Bishops 
of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  in  due  order. 

Now  the  question  is  :  Did  Hosius  occupy  this  posi- 
tion as  representative  of  the  Roman  Bishop  ?  The 
earliest  evidence  for  this  theory  is  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus, 
who,  in  the  fifth  century,  tells  us  that  Hosius  represented 
Bishop  Silvester,  together  with  the  two  Roman  priests 
Vito  (or  Vitus)  and  Vincentius.  It  is  obvious  that  a 
witness  so  far  removed  from  the  time  to  which  he  refers 
cannot  be  accepted  without  external  confirmation  of  his 
testimony  ;  and  there  is  none  such  to  be  found.  Hosius 
signs  first,  giving  no  token  that  he  represents  any  one 
but  himself;  then  follow  the  two  Roman  priests,  who 
professedly  sign  on  behalf  of  Silvester,  their  bishop. 

Hefele  accounts  for  this  difference  by  saying  that 
Vito  and  Vincentius,  not  being  bishops,  had  no  right  to 
sign  unless  as  representing  a  bishop,  whereas  Hosius 
had  a  right  to  sign  on  his  own  behalf,  and  therefore  did 
not  need  to  add  the  same  description.  There  are  two 
answers  to  this  argument :  (i)  That  at  the  Fourth  Council 
at  Chalcedon,  when  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  represented 
by  episcopal  legates,  these  bishops,  in  signing,  indicated 
that  they  were  the  representatives  of  the  Roman  See ; 
and  (2),  it  must  seem  very  strange  that,  if  those  three 
men  all  represented  Bishop  Silvester,  although  their 
signatures  stood  next  to  each  other  below  the  decrees 
of  the  Council,  two  of  them  should  sign  as  representing 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  the  other  should  not.  '^The 
solution  of  the  question,"  as  Hefele  remarks,  "is  not  with- 
out difficulty."  It  certainly  is  not  without  difiiculty  to 
those  who  hold  that  the  Roman  Bishop  was  the  real 


156  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A. 

President  of  the  Council ;  and  the  most  ardent  supporter 
of  this  view  will  hardly  venture  to  say  it  is  proved. 

3.  The  Confirmation  of  the  Decrees. 

This  is  certainly  not  the  least  important  of  the  three 
questions  under  discussion;  and  it  demands  careful  exa- 
mination. It  is  not  pretended  that  the  Pope  exercised 
any  direct  or  indirect  influence  on  the  discussions  of  the 
Council.  Those  w^ere  perfectly  free ;  and,  as  far  as  we 
know,  it  never  occurred  to  any  one  who  took  part  in 
them  that  there  was  anywhere  in  the  world  a  sovereign 
bishop  who  might  interfere  and  reverse  the  conclusions 
at  which  they  should  arrive.  But  it  has  been  said  that 
the  decrees  of  the  Council  could  have  no  real  validity 
until  they  had  received  the  sanction  of  the  Roman  Bishop, 
and  had  been  by  him  promulgated.  We  must  now  con- 
sider whether  this  is  so. 

^^  The  decrees  of  the  ancient  G]]cumenical  Councils," 
says  Hefele,  "  were  confirmed  by  the  Emperors  and  by 
the  Popes ;  those  of  the  later  Councils  by  the  Popes 
alone."  He  then  mentions  that  Constantine  *^  solemnly 
confirmed  the  Nicene  creed  after  it  had  been  drawn  up 
by  the  Council,  and  threatened  such  as  would  not  sub- 
scribe it  with  exile.''  Theodosius  the  Great  confirmed 
the  decrees  of  Constantinople ;  and  so  forth,  mentioning 
eight  Councils. 

He  then  proceeds :  "  The  papal  confirmation  of  all 
these  eight  first  CEcumenical  Councils  is  not  so  clear  and 
distinct.  The  signatures  of  the  Pope's  legates,  Hosius 
(?),  Vitus,  and  Vincentius,  subscribed  to  the  acts  of  the 
Council  before  the  other  bishops,  must  be  regarded 
as  a  sanction  from  the  See  of  Rome  to  the  decrees  of 
Nicaea.     Five  documents,  dating  from  the  fifth  century, 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICJ^A,  157 

mention,  besides,  a  solemn  approval  of  the  acts  of  the 
Council  of  Nicsea,  given  by  Pope  Silvester,  &c.,  and  a 
Roman  Synod  of  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  bishops. 
It  is  granted  that  these  documents  are  not  authentic,  as 
we  shall  show  in  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea ; 
but  we  nevertheless  consider  it  very  probable  that  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  was  recognized  and  approved  by  an 
especial  act  of  Pope  Silvester,  and  not  merely  by  the 
signature  of  his  legates."  For  this  he  assigns  four  reasons, 
which  we  must  consider. 

First,  however,  we  must  remark  that  the  signatures  of 
the  tw^o  Roman  priests,  as  the  Roman  legates,  even  if 
we  add  Hosius  to  the  number,  can  prove  nothing  as  to 
the  necessity  of  any  confirmation  of  the  decrees  of  the 
synod  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome;  and  further,  even  if  it 
could  be  shown  that  the  Pope  did  give  public  sanction 
to  the  decisions  of  the  synod,  that  could  prove  nothing 
as  regards  the  subsequent  claims  of  the  Holy  See,  un- 
less it  could  be  shown  that  this  confirmation  was  sent 
forth  to  the  whole  Church,  and  by  the  whole  Church 
accepted. 

Let  us  next  look  at  Hefele's  reasons  for  believing  in 
the  papal  confirmation  of  the  Nicene  decrees.  As  we 
have  said,  they  are,  or  rather  they  were,  four : 

I.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon  regarded  such  con- 
firmation "as  absolutely  necessary;'^  and  it  is  not  likely 
"that  this  was  a  new  principle,  and  one  that  was  not 
known  and  recognized  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene 
Council."  So  far  the  argument  is  a  mere  inference  ;  but 
the  fact  from  which  it  is  drawn  is  not  correctly  stated. 
The  Fourth  Council  did  not  require  the  confirmation  of 
its  decrees  generally  of  the  Pope,  but  only  that  of  the 


158  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A, 

twenty-eighth  canon,  which  had  reference  to  the  rank  of 
the  Church  of  Constantinople,  as  the  legates  said  they 
had  no  instructions  on  that  subject,  and  it  was  a  point 
which  nearly  affected  the  Roman  See.  Indeed,  when 
the  Emperor  Marcian  afterwards  asked  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  to  confirm  all  the  decisions  of  the  synod,  Leo 
answered  that  it  was  unnecessary. 

2.  A  second  argument  is  found  in  the  fact  that  a 
synod  of  more  than  forty  bishops  from  different  parts  of 
Italy,  held  in  the  year  485,  declared  with  all  definiteness 
and  confidence,  '^that  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
bishops  at  Nicsea  obtained  the  confirmation  of  their 
transactions  from  the  authority  of  the  holy  Roman 
Church  "  (confir7?iationei7i  rerum  atque  auctoritatem  sanctce 
Roma7ice.  ecclesice  detukrunt).  On  this  statement  two 
remarks  may  be  offered,  first,  that  the  testimony  of  a 
synod  held  one  hundr-ed  and  sixty  years  after  the  event 
to  which  it  refers  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  suflficient ; 
and  further,  as  Friedrich  has  pointed  out,  that  the  fourth 
canon  of  Nicaea,  to  which  that  synod  refers,  does  not 
support  the  statement  which  it  makes.  That  canon,"^ 
speaking  of  the  appointment  of  bishops,  says  that  "  the 
confirmation  of  what  is  done  (ro  ok  xu^og  rSi/  yivo/xsvu)^) 
shall  belong  in  each  province  to  the  metropolitan." 
It  is  quite  true  that  there  is  a  copy  of  the  canons  which 
says  that  such  an  authority  was  assigned  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  as  the  Head  of  all  the  Churches,  because  of 
Christ's  words  to  Peter  :  *^  Upon  this  rock,"  &c.  But  it 
is  now  agreed  that  this  text  is  spurious  ;  so  that  the 
assertion  of  the  Roman  Synod  and  this  supposed  testi- 

*  See  Hefele,  vol.  i.  §  42. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A.  159 

mony  of  the  Nicene  Council  must  fall  to  the  ground 
together. 

3.  Hefele's  third  argument  consists  in  a  statement  of 
Pope  Julius  I.,  made  a  few  years  after  the  close  of  the 
Nicene  Council,  that  ecclesiastical  decrees  (the  decisions 
of  Councils)  cannot  have  validity  without  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  Roman  bishop,  and  that  this  is  an  ecclesias- 
tical rule  and  law  {canon  ecdesiasticus).  (The  authority 
for  the  statement  is  Socrates,  Eccl.  Hist,  ii.  17).  Hefele 
does  not  himself  regard  this  testimony  as  satisfactory, 
for  (§  44)  he  has  modified  his  opinion  on  the  subject 
since  the  first  edition  of  his  history  was  published.  In 
that  he  had  said,  "  As  Pope  Julius  filled  the  Holy  See  only 
eleven  years  after  the  Nicene  Synod,  we  are  forced  to 
believe  that  such  a  rule  must  have  existed  at  the  time  of 
the  Nicene  Synod."  In  the  new  edition,  after  ^*  Nicene 
Synod,"  he  writes  :  "  A  rule  of  the  kind  of  which  he 
speaks  must,  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Synod,  have 
been  asserted  at  least  in  Rome  "^ — which  is  a  very  diffe- 
rent thing.  Even  that  is  open  to  discussion  ;  but  it  need 
not  detain  us  longer. 

A  fourth  argument  adduced  in  the  first  edition  of 
the  "  History  of  the  Councils,"  is  silently  dropped  in 
the  second,  so  that  it  demands  no  further  consideration 
at  our  hands. 

The  conclusion  which  alone  is  justified  by  the  facts 
before  us  is  simply  this,  that  there  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever that  would  be  considered  valid  by  any  impartial 
inquirer,  to  prove  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  joined  in 
summoning  the  Council,  or  presided  over  it  by  his 
legate,  or  finally  confirmed  its  decrees  after  they  were 
drawn  up  by  the  Council. 


i6o  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A. 

We  must  not,  however,  overlook  an  important  although 
indirect  testimony  on  the  subject,  which  is  contained  in 
the  canons  of  the  synod.  The  question  of  the  precedence 
of  the  great  Sees  was  one  of  the  subjects  discussed. 
As  we  do  not  possess  the  Acts  of  the  Council  in  their 
entirety,  we  cannot  say  in  what  form  the  question  came 
up ;  but  we  possess  the  decisions  of  the  bishops  in  the 
sixth  and  seventh  canons. 

To  the  seventh  we  have  already  referred  in  connection 
with  the  Church  of  Jerusalem.  The  sixth  refers  to 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  "  the  other  eparchies  (pro- 
vinces) ; "  and  incidentally  to  Rome.  The  words  of  the 
canon  are  :  ''  Let  the  ancient  customs  prevail  (KParsiru) 
in  Egypt,  Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  that  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  have  authority  (s^cvffla)  over  all  these,  as  this 
is  also  the  custom  for  the  Bishop  in  Rome.  In  like 
manner,  at  Antioch  and  in  the  other  provinces,  shall  the 
seniority  (ra  ir^jo^ua)  be  preserved  for  the  Churches.^' 
It  is  beyond  our  purpose  to  consider  the  various  ques- 
tions which  have  been  discussed  in  connection  with  the 
whole  contents  of  this  canon ;  but  two  things  are  quite 
clear  in  the  words  which  we  have  quoted;  first,  that 
Alexandria  is  here  spoken  of  as  having  a  position  parallel 
or  analogous  to  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  secondly, 
that  the  authority,  priority,  or  seniority  of  these  Metro- ' 
politan  Sees  is  not  traced  to  a  Divine  appointment,  but 
is  made  to  rest  on  custom. 

It  is  the  old  custom  {ra  a^yjiTa  Uri)  w^hich  determines 
the  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  in  relation  to 
the  African  Churches ;  and  it  is  the  same  with  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  Curiously,  Hefele  drops  this  word  in 
his   translation  of  the  canon  when  he  comes  to  the  part 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A.  i6i 

respecting  Rome,  and  renders  it  ^*a  like  relation  exists 
for  the  Bishop  of  Rome  "  [fur  deii  Roniischen  Bischof  ein 
gleiches  Verhdltniss  besteht).  Of  course  there  was  no 
intention,  on  his  part,  to  conceal  the  exact  statement  of 
the  Council.  It  is  necessary,  however,  to  point  out  that 
it  is  as  we  have  rendered  it:  "also  for  the  Bishop  in 
Rome  this  is  customary "  (xa/  ru)  sv  rfj  *Pw<a?j  sV/^rxoVw 

Here,  then,  we  find  there  is  nothing  of  a  tradition  from 
the  apostles,  nor  of  any  positive  law,  determining  the 
precedence  of  those  Sees,  but  only  an  ancient  custom, 
v/hich  is  to  be  treated  with  respect  and  preserved.  For 
practical  reasons  this  custom  is  now  to  be  solemnly 
recognized  by  the  Church,  and  so  made  a  right  belonging 
to  those  Sees.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  suppose  that  the 
bishops  at  Nicsea  could  have  so  worded  their  decree,  if 
they  had  been  aware  of  any  special  authority  belonging 
to  the  Roman  Bishop  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter ;  or 
if  they  had  considered  that  he  possessed  a  primacy  over 
the  whole  Church.  In  their  view  "  custom  "  made  him 
the  senior  bishop  of  the  Western  Churches  just  as  "  old 
custom  "  made  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  first  among  the 
African  bishops. 

It  is  but  fair,  however,  to  state  the  Roman  view  of 
the  canon  in  the  words  of  its  representatives.  Phillips 
remarks :  "  That  the  canon  will  not  serve  as  evidence, 
for  the  primacy  of  the  Pope  admits  of  no  doubt ; "  but 
he  adds  :  "the  primacy,  which  had  certainly  no  need 
of  recognition  by  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  is  not  here 
considered."  And  Hefele  remarks  :  "  It  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  Pope  unites  in  himself  several 
ecclesiastical    dignities;    he   is    bishop,    metropolitan, 

L 


1 62  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A. 

patriarch,  and  lastly,  primate  of  the  whole  Church. 
Each  one  of  these  dignities  may  be  regarded  separately, 
and  that  is  what  the  canon  has  done  :  it  does  not  con- 
sider the  Roman  Bishop  as  Pope,  nor  as  mere  Bishop  of 
the  City  of  Rome ;  but  it  treats  him  as  one  of  the  great 
metropolitans,  which  have  not  merely  one  province,  but 
several,  under  their  jurisdiction." 

These  remarks  are  perfectly  natural  as  coming  from 
those  who  believe  in  tire  primacy  of  the  Roman  Bishop. 
But  those  who  can  discover  no  satisfactory  evidence  of 
this  supremacy  before  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council  will 
find  their  opinion  confirmed  by  seeing  that  it  is  entirely 
ignored — more  correctly,  perhaps,  it  seems  entirely  un- 
known— by  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  They  will  find  it 
impossible  to  understand  that,  if  it  had  been  then  recog- 
nized by  the  Church,  an  CEcumenical  Council  should  so 
entirely  pass  it  by,  even  when  pronouncing  upon  subjects 
which  would  naturally  have  led  to  a  reference  to  it. 

And  this  impression  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 
the  canon,  as  it  stood,  was  not  regarded  as  satisfactory 
by  the  Latin  Church,  since  before  long  a  version  of  it 
appeared  at  Rome,  supplying  the  words  which  the 
Council  would  have  been  almost  certain  to  employ  if  it 
had  recognized  the  Roman  theory.  ''•  In  some  ancient 
Latin  translations,"  says  Hefele,  "this  canon  begins 
with  the  words,  Ecclesia  Roma7ia  semper  hahuit  priijia- 
turn  (the  Roman  Church  has  always  had  the  primacy) ; " 
and  consequently  "  the  Emperor  Theodosius  IL  main- 
tained that  the  holy  synod  had  confirmed  the  primacy 
of  the  Apostolic  See."  Further  "  at  the  sixteenth  session 
of  the  Fourth  CEcumenical   Synod  at  Chalcedon,  the 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A,  163 

Roman  Legate  Paschasinus  read  the  sixth  canon,"  as 
commencing  with  the  words  quoted  above. 

It  has  been  asserted  that,  from  the  acceptance  of  this 
version  of  the  canon,  the  Fourth  Council  recognized  and 
confirmed  the  Roman  primacy.  Even  if  this  were  so, 
it  would  prove  nothing  as  regards  the  Nicene  Council ; 
but  in  fact  the  declaration  of  the  imperial  commissioners 
at  Chalcedon  falls  far  short  of  the  claims  which  are  now 
put  forth  on  the  Roman  side  :  *'  We  acknowledge,"  they 
said,  after  hearing  the  papal  legate  on  the  one  side  and 
the  canons  of  Constantinople  on  the  other,  '^  that  the 
most  ancient  right  of  all,  and  the  pre-eminence  (r^jv 
s^a/^sTov  Ttixriv)  belong  to  the  Archbishop  of  Old  Rome  ; 
but  that  the  same  pre-eminence  of  honour  (ra  cr^gj/SsTa 
Trig  '^iMi)  ought  to  be  given  to  the  Archbishop  of  New 
Rome." 

The  facts  in  connection  with  the  Council  of  Nicaea, 
as  far  as  they  bear  on  the  Roman  primacy,  are  now 
sufficiently  before  the  reader.  It  is  admitted  on  all 
hands  that  the  Council  of  Nicoea  did  not  formally 
recognize  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  over  the 
whole  Church,  or  in  any  way  refer  to  it.  The  real 
questions  which  arise  when  we  ask  how  far  the  Papal 
claims  are  supported,  or  the  reverse,  by  the  transactions 
of  the  Council,  are  these  :  Is  it  likely  that  the  Council 
would  have  thus  expressed  itself  on  the  subject  of  the 
great  patriarchates,  if  it  had  understood  that  Rome  was 
set  over  them  all,  and  its  bishop  was  the  sovereign  of 
the  whole  Church  ?  And  further  :  Do  the  admitted  facts 
in  connection  with  this  Council  agree  best  with  the 
modern  Roman  theory,  or  with  the  position  which  we 
have  assigned  to  the  Roman  Bishop  after  an  examination 


1 64  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A. 

of  all  the  early  documents  which  bear  upon   the  sub- 
ject ? 

We  have  stated  the  case  as  fairly  as  we  can.  The 
reader  must  judge  for  himself  whether  our  inference  is 
just — that  the  Nicene  Council  admitted  nothing,  and 
knew  nothing,  of  the  Papal  claims  to  a  sovereignty  over 
the  Christian  Church. 


(     i65    ) 


CHAPTER  XII. 

POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY, 

Tlie  early  Church  ignorant  of  modern  Papal  claims — How  do  we  account, 
then,  for  the  rise  of  the  Papal  power  ? — Further  facts  considered — 
The  Papal  claims  never  universally  accepted— Traces  of  gradual 
Papal  aggressions— The  Council  of  Sardica — Third  canon — Appeals 
to  the  Roman  Bishop — Fifth  canon — Inconsistent  with  Papal  claims 
— Council  of  Constantinople — Second  canon — Third  canon — The 
greatness  of  the  cities,  not  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  sees,  deter- 
mined their  precedence — Growth  of  Roman  Papal  power  explained 
— Illustrated  from  secular  history — Papal  power  and  influence— The 
real  question. 

If  we  have  shown  that  Primitive  Christianity  knew 
nothing  of  modern  Papal  pretensions,  we  have  accom- 
pUshed  our  undertaking :  and  this  we  believe  we  have 
satisfactorily  made  out.  Let  it  be  clearly  understood 
what  we  mean  by  this.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  Papal 
pretensions  were  resented  and  its  aggressions  resisted. 
It  is  much  more  than  this.  Those  pretensions,  in  their 
modern  form,  were  never  put  forward  at  all — were  never 
so  much  as  heard  of. 

If  this  has  not  been  made  out,  our  case  has  failed :  if 
it  has  been  established,  then  the  demands  of  the  Roman 
See  and  the  Roman  Church  must  be  resisted  to  the 
death.  From  such  a  quarter  we  can  accept  no  help  in 
our  hour  of  need,  no  deliverance  from  any  difficulties, 


1 66  POST'NICENE  TESTIMONY, 

however  embarrassing;  for  the  simple  reason  that  we 
cannot  be  helped  by  falsehood.  And  this  is  the  plain 
alternative,  as  our  antagonists  will  concede.  The  de- 
mands of  Rome  are  either  the  authoritative  utterances 
of  Christ's  living  representative  on  earth,  or  they  are  a 
falsehood.  If  they  are  the  former,  we  owe  instant  and 
penitent  submission ;  if  the  latter,  we  cannot  give  place 
to  them  for  an  hour,  or  a  second. 

If  these  claims  cannot  be  discovered  in  the  Church 
up  to  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  we  may  unhesi- 
tatingly decide  that  they  are  not  divine,  but  human  ; 
that  they  are  not  a  part  of  the  original  institution  of  the 
Christian  Church,  but  a  subsequent  introduction.  We 
might  therefore  now  hold  our  hand,  and  leave  the  facts 
and  arguments  which  have  already  been  adduced  to  the 
candid  consideration  of  our  readers. 

It  may  be  well,  however,  to  glance  at  one  argument 
from  the  Roman  side,  which  has  already  been  noticed, 
but  which  is  sometimes  put  forth  in  a  more  definite  form, 
with  special  reference  to  the  age  which  follows  after  the 
Council  of  Nicaea.  ^'  How  do  we  account '' — this  is  the 
question  which  is  put  to  us — "  for  the  universal  accept- 
ance of  the  Roman  claims?  and  more  particularly,  how 
do  we  account  for  the  manner  in  which  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  received  the  pretensions  of  St.  Leo  ?  " 

It  is  not  altogether  impossible  to  answer  this  question, 
although  our  failure  to  do  so  would  in  no  way  invaUdate 
the  conclusions  at  which  we  have  arrived.  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  well  to  ask  whether  we  have  not,  in  the  fourth 
century,  further  evidence  against  the  modern  claims  of 
the  Roman  Church,  as  well  as  certain  facts  which  will 
help  us  to  understand  the  growth  of  the  Papal  power. 


POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY,  167 

For  a  complete  discussion  of  the  subject,  the  reader 
must  go  to  the  ecclesiastical  histories,  and  to  works 
which  have  dealt  formally  with  this  portion  of  the  subject 
of  the  supremacy.  We  must  restrict  ourselves  to  certain 
points  which  bear  directly  upon  the  question  before  us. 

We  remark,  then,  that  the  claims  put  forth  by  Pope 
Leo,  especially  as  they  were  understood  by  the  Council, 
were  very  different  from  those  of  the  modern  Popes  ;  and 
further,  that  the  supposed  universality  of  the  acceptance 
of  the  Roman  supremacy  is  not  an  historical  fact.  There 
is  no  period  in  the  whole  history  of  Christianity  in  which 
the  Eastern  Churches  acknowledged  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
as  the  supreme  governor  of  the  Church,  although  they 
did  recognize  his  precedence  or  seniority. 

It  is  not,  however,  denied  that  the  encroachments  of 
the  Roman  See  upon  the  liberties  of  other  bishops  and 
Churches  made  great  progress  after  the  adoption  of 
Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  empire  j  and  it  may 
be  well  to  mark  some  traces  of  these  encroachments, 
especially  as  they  are  found  in  the  most  trustworthy 
documents,  the  decrees  of  Councils. 

Two  of  these  are  of  great  interest  and  importance  in 
their  bearing  upon  the  Papal  claims,  and  have  been 
frequently  discussed  at  great  length.  We  refer  to  canons 
passed  at  the  Council  of  Sardica  (344),  and  to  two  of 
the  canons  of  Constantinople  (381).  Many  questions 
have  been  raised  respecting  the  Council  of  Sardica — 
whether  it  was  oecumenical,  a  question  which  has  generally 
been  answered  in  the  negative ;  whether  it  may  be 
regarded  as  a  continuation  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea, 
which  at  one  time  seemed  to  be  the  Roman  view;  and 
other   questions.     Into   these    we   can   here    enter    no 


i68  POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY. 

further  than  to  remark  that,  beyond  doubt,  the  Synod  of 
Sardica  cannot  be  regarded  as  having  equal  authority 
with  that  of  Nicaea."^ 

It  is  to  a  part  of  the  third  canon  of  this  Council,  as 
proposed  by  Hosius  who  presided,  and  accepted  by  the 
bishops  present,  that  we  must  draw  particular  attention. 
The  canon  first  states  that  bishops  are  not  to  go  from 
their  own  province  to  another  unless  they  are  invited 
by  their  brethren ;  and  further,  that,  in  a  general  way, 
quarrels  between  bishops  should  not  be  settled  by  a 
bishop  from  another  province  ;  yet,  the  canon  goes  on, 
**If  any  one  of  the  bishops  has  been  condemned  in  any 
matter,  and  thinks  that  he  has  a  good  cause,  so  that  the 
trial  should  again  be  renewed  :  if  it  seem  good  to  your 
charity,  let  us  honour  the  memory  of  the  [holy]  Apostle 
Peter,  so  that  those  who  have  judged  the  case  may  write 
to  Julius,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  if  he  shall  judge  that 
the  case  should  be  reopened,  this  may  be  done,  and  he 
may  appoint  judges."  t 

The  subject  of  this  canon  is  further  dealt  with  in  the 
fifth,  from  which  we  extract  the  latter  part.  After  saying 
that  the  Roman  Bishop  may  have  the  question  tried  by  the 
nearest  bishops,  it  goes  on:  "But  if  the  appellant  can 
induce  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  send  priests  of  his  own  to 
be  judges  along  with  the  appointed  bishops,  which  priests 
shall  possess  the  authority  of  him  by  whom  they  are 
appointed,  it  shall  be  at  his  discretion  to  do  so.     But  if 


*  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  subject,  see  Hussey's  '*Rise  of  the 
Papal  Power." 

t  The  Greek  and  Latin  texts  (apparently  both  original)  differ 
considerably  in  expression,  but  the  meaning  of  both  is  the  same. 


POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY,  169 

he  should  think  the  bishops  alone  sufficient  to  finish  the 
business,  he  shall  do  what  he  thinks  most  wise.""^ 

^'  A  violent  controversy,"  says  Hefele,  **  has  arisen 
between  the  Galilean  and  Curiahst  theologians  respecting 
the  meaning  of  this  canon/'  It  is  well  known  that  in 
certain  cases  of  appeals  to  Rome,  the  Papal  theologians 
quoted  these  canons  as  being  put  forth  by  the  Council 
of  Nicaea,  a  statement  which  the  African  bishops  called 
in  question,  as  they  said  they  could  not  find  them  in 
their  copy  of  the  Nicene  canons. 

Even  this  fact  is  significant.  Here  we  find  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  supporting  his  claims,  not  on  the  ground  of 
Divine  right,  conferred  by  our  Lord  upon  St.  Peter,  and 
by  him  transmitted  to  his  successors  in  the  Roman  See ; 
but  on  the  ground  of  the  canons  of  a  provincial  synod, 
which  he  (probably  by  mistake)  joins  on  to  the  great 
Synod  of  Nicaea. 

Now,  the  question  is  simply  inevitable  :  If  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  had  these  supreme  powers,  what  need  was  there 
to  refer  to  these  or  any  canons  as  conferring  such  rights 
upon  him  ?  According  to  the  Roman  theory,  the  Pope 
was  acknowledged  to  be  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and 
as  such  had  an  inherent  right  to  reverse  the  decisions  of 
all  other  bishops,  and  to  give  or  refuse  his  confirmation 
to  the  decrees  of  all  synods.  These  powers  were  not 
only  claimed  by  the  Roman  bishops,  but  universally 
understood  and  conceded  to  them.  If  this  theory  be 
true,  it  is  perfectly  unintelligible  that  regulations  such  as 
those  made  at  Sardica  should  have  found  their  way  into 
the  canons  of  a  synod.  What  need  was  there  to  confer 
such  slender  powers  upon  one  to  whom  all  power 
*  Hefele,  §  64  (Vol.  ii.  p.  120  Eng.  Trans.). 


4 


1 70  POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY. 


belonged?  What  could  such  enactments  add  to  the 
authority  of  one  who  was  already,  and  was  acknowledged 
to  be,  the  Vicar  of  Christ  upon  earth  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  How  could  the  Pope  appeal  to 
these  canons  if  he  had  no  need  of  them?  and,  more 
wonderful  still,  how  could  the  bishops  of  another  pro- 
vince call  in  question  his  power  of  hearing  appeals,  and 
argue  with  him  the  validity  of  the  very  canons  on  which 
he  based  his  rights?  Yet  all  this  actually  took  place. 
We  do  not  here  enter  into  particular  cases,  or  the  merits 
of  them,  or  their  final  decision.  These  points  are  all 
beside  the  question.  What  we  are  now  considering  is 
the  possibility  of  reconciling  these  unquestioned  facts 
with  the  claims  and  pretensions  of  the  Roman  See.  If 
the  historical  view,  which  we  have  here  endeavoured  to 
present,  is  true,  all  becomes  perfectly  intelligible.  The 
power  of  the  Roman  See  is  growing  quite  naturally  out 
of  the  circumstances  in  which  it  is  placed ;  but  it  is  a 
power  which  was  not  derived  from  Christ  or  St.  Peter, 
but  which  was  freely  given  by  the  other  churches,  or 
forcibly  wrested  from  them,  as  the  occasion  served. 

The  inconsistency  here  involved  is  so  great  that  we 
might  safely  leave  it  to  be  considered  as  an  argument 
to  be  well  weighed  on  the  one  side,  or  as  a  difficulty  to 
be  accounted  for  on  the  other.  But  the  actual  contents 
of  the  canon  should  not  be  overlooked,  nor  the  nature 
of  the  power  which  it  confers  upon  the  Roman  Bishop. 
In  the  first  place,  the  power  itself  is  of  a  very  limited 
description.  It  gives  the  Pope  no  right  of  interference ; 
but  simply  the  power  of  appointing  judges  to  hear  ap- 
peals if  any  should  be  brought  before  him  :  a  regulation 
which  must  have  proved  most  useful  and  convenient, 


POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY.  171 

and  which  has  something  analogous  to  it  in  almost  every 
Church  of  Christendom. 

A  second  thing  to  be  noted  in  the  canon  is,  that  it 
does  not  confer  these  powers  and  privileges  upon  the 
Popes  in  general,  but  upon  the  particular  Bishop  of 
Rome  who  was  then  living.  It  is  quite  true  that  the 
fourth  and  fifth  canons  refer  simply  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  without  naming  Julius,  as  the  third  does;  but 
it  may  be  that  the  reference  is  still  to  the  same.  In  any 
case,  the  difficulty  has  been  felt  by  Roman  commentators 
on  these  canons,  who  have  in  some  cases  attempted  to 
show  that  the  reading  is  corrupt. 

One  other  point  may  be  noted.  Each  of  these  canons 
begins  with  the  words:  *' Bishop  Hosius  said,"  implying 
that  he,  as  president,  submitted  these  proposals  to  the 
assembly  of  the  bishops ;  and  we  have  seen  that  in  the 
third  canon  he  distinctly  introduces  the  words,  '4fit 
pleases  you  "  (in  the  Latin  copy),  or  "  if  it  pleases  your 
charity"  (in  the  Greek  copy).  What  can  these  words 
mean,  if  not,  that  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  Council  to 
grant  or  refuse  this  right  of  appeal  to  the  Roman  Bishop? 
Again  we  ask :  Is  the  principle  involved  in  this  proceed- 
ing compatible  with  an  acknowledgment  of  the  primacy 
of  jurisdiction  claimed  by  the  See  of  Rome? 

We  pass  to  the  Council  of  Constantinople  (381),  and 
draw  attention  to  its  second  canon,  which  begins  as 
follows  :  "  The  bishops  of  another  diocese  shall  not  pass 
over  to  foreign  Churches,  and  introduce  confusion  among 
them;  but,  in  accordance  with  the  canons,  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  shall  govern  the  affairs  of  Egypt  only,  and 
the  Eastern  Bishops  shall  have  charge  of  the  affairs  of 
the  East  only,  while  the  rights  of  the  Antiochene  Church, 


172  POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY, 

as  declared  in  the  sixth  canon  of  Nicaea,  shall  be  pre- 
served, and  the  bishops  of  the  dioceses  of  Asia  [that  is, 
the  western  side  of  Asia  Minor]  shall  have  jurisdiction 
only  over  Asia,  those  of  the  dioceses  of  Pontus  over 
Pontus,  and  those  of  the  dioceses  of  Thrace  over 
Thrace.'' 

There  is  no  exception  made  in  favour  of  Rome  as 
universal  metropolis  :  it  is  simply  ignored,  as  having  no 
control  whatsoever  over  the  Eastern  Churches.  This 
happens,  the  Roman  advocates  tell  us,  because  there 
was  no  question  made  of  the  Papal  primacy ;  but  it 
must  be  admitted  as  at  least  remarkable  that  in  so  many 
places,  in  which  it  might  seem  the  most  natural  thing 
possible  to  refer  to  the  Roman  power,  if  it  had  been 
acknowledged,  we  find  not  the  most  distant  allusion 
to  it. 

The  third  canon  should  also  be  noticed  :  "  The  Bishop 
of  Constantinople  shall  hold  the  first  rank  after  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  because  Constantinople  is  New  Rome."  This 
canon  throws  light  on  the  nature  of  the  precedence  given 
to  the  several  bishops,  and  also  to  the  reason  on  which 
it  was  founded.  Up  to  this  time  Alexandria,  supreme 
in  its  own  province,  had  held  the  place  in  the  whole 
Church  next  to  Rome ;  now  Constantinople  is  elevated 
to  the  second  place. 

The  position  here  assigned  to  Constantinople  was 
resisted  at  Rome,  and  was  never  fully  recognized ;  but 
this  is  of  no  importance  for  our  present  purpose.  What 
we  would  point  out  is,  that  the  Council,  while  admitting 
the  precedence  or  seniority  of  the  See  of  Rome,  is  evi- 
dently unaware  of  any  authority  which  it  possesses  over 
the  other  Churches;  and  further,   that  we  have  here, 


POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY.  173 

again,  an  explanation  of  the  position  conceded  to  the 
Church  of  Rome.  It  was  the  first  of  Churches  because 
Rome  was  the  first  of  cities.  Up  to  this  time  Alexandria, 
and  not  Antioch  (the  traditional  See  of  Peter),  was  the 
second  in  priority;  but  now  Constantinople,  as  *^New 
Rome,"  is  to  be  elevated  into  the  second  place.  There 
is  nothing  said  of  any  apostolic  chair,  nothing  of  any 
succession  from  one  or  more  of  the  Apostles.  Rome, 
Constantinople,  Alexandria;  these  are  the  three  great 
cities  of  the  Roman  Empire ;  and  therefore  they  are  the 
three  first  thrones  in  the  Christian  Church. 

It  is  obvious  that,  as  we  follow  the  history  of  the 
Church,  we  obtain  increasing  light  upon  the  development 
of  the  Papal  pretensions.  Step  by  step,  as  the  Church 
goes  forward,  does  this  central  authority  advance  with 
it,  making  its  presence,  its  influence,  and  its  power  felt 
increasingly  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  As  we  consider 
attentively  the  circumstances  in  which  it  is  placed,  the 
history  of  the  ages  through  which  it  passes,  we  find  no 
great  difficulty  in  understanding  how  it  was  that  the 
growing  pretensions  of  the  Roman  See  were  finally 
acquiesced  in  by  the  Western  Churches. 

This  is  the  question  which,  Roman  advocates  tell  us, 
it  is  impossible  to  answer.  It  is  in  fact  not  even  difficult 
to  explain,  when  the  whole  circumstances  of  the  case  are 
considered.  First  of  all,  we  have  priority  or  seniority, 
at  one  time  of  Jerusalem,  at  another  of  Antioch,  finally 
of  Rome.  Then  we  have  appeals  allowed  and  actually 
carried  to  the  senior  bishop  of  Christendom ;  and  to 
whom  should  they  be  carried  with  so  much  propriety  ? 
Yet  this  is  not  allowed  at  first ;  and  it  was  probably 
never  admitted  as  a  universal  principle  by  the  Oriental 


174  POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY. 

Churches.  Then,  again,  the  love  of  unity,  so  strongly 
exemplified  in  St.  Cyprian,  for  instance,  led  to  the 
recognition  of  Rome  as  a  convenient  centre.  To  this 
great  metropolis  all  civil  causes  were  carried ;  how  could 
a  better  court  of  appeal  be  found  for  all  ecclesiastical 
causes  ? 

Is  it  strange  that  the  authority  to  whom  it  was  given 
to  decide  these  difficulties  and  controversies  should 
gradually  usurp  a  power  which  it  did  not  originally  pos- 
sess ?  Is  it  strange  that  the  decision  of  a  cause  which 
w^as  originally  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  Synod  or 
the  Council  should  come  to  be  ascribed  to  the  bishop, 
and  that  this  bishop  should  become  more  and  more 
absolute?  It  was,  in  fact,  quite  natural.  Or,  again, 
that  this  bishop  who  became  supreme  judge  in  matters 
of  discipline  and  the  like,  should  arrogate  to  himself  the 
right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  doctrine?  This,  too,  is  not 
at  all  difficult  to  understand.  It  was  but  the  response 
to  the  desire  for  certainty,  which  was  almost  as  readily 
received  as  it  was  offered.  When  people  tell  us  that 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  ought  to  be  listened  to,  because  he 
alone  can  give  us  that  certainty  for  which  we  crave  and 
which  we  have  a  right  to  expect,  they  are  in  fact  answer- 
ing that  other  question,  as  to  how  the  Church  came  to 
acquiesce  in  the  Papal  pretensions.  They  are  telling  us 
that  men  grow  weary,  of  doubts  and  difficulties — grow 
weary,  in  short,  of  the  discipline  which  God  has  ordained 
for  us  all,  and  gladly  listen  to  any  one  who  professes  to 
give  them  certainty  and  rest  from  their  doubts,  and  so 
accept  the  Papal  authority  without  inquiring  too  carefully 
into  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests. 

We    might  as    w^ell   ask :     How   came   the    English 


POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY.  175 

people  to  acquiesce  in  the  tyranny  of  Henry  VIII  ? 
Or  better  still  :  How  came  the  French  people  to  sub- 
mit to  the  tyranny  of  Louis  XIV  ?  The  question  is 
almost  exactly  parallel  to  the  Roman  inquiry?  How 
came  the  other  bishops  to  submit  to  the  tyranny  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome?  France  had  its  Dukes  and  Counts 
and  local  Parliaments — all  having  a  certain  independence 
of  their  own.  By  degrees  the  necessity  became  apparent 
for  a  great  central  authority  which  should  give  unity  to 
the  whole,  and  thus  present  a  strong  defence  against  ex- 
ternal enemies.  Not  at  once,  but  by  slow  degrees,  w^as 
this  unity  brought  about.  It  was  after  generations  of 
conflict  that  the  whole  power  of  France,  legislative  and 
administrative,  came  to  be  centred  in  the  king ;  and  it 
was  also  by  slow  degrees,  by  revolutions  and  counter- 
revolutions, by  long  and  bloody  conflicts,  which  some 
think  not  yet  terminated,  that  this  central  autocratic 
power  was  broken.  By  the  very  same  process  the 
autocracy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  came  to  be  established  ; 
by  a  very  similar  process,  now  going  on,  sometimes 
visibly,  sometimes  invisibly,  that  power  will  be  broken 
down  and  destroyed. 

Indeed,  the  illustration  adduced  not  only  throws  light 
upon  the  history  of  the  past,  it  may  help  us  to  under- 
stand something  of  what  is  passing  before  our  eyes  in 
the  present.  The  discontent  which  is  often  expressed 
with  the  difiiculties  and  uncertainties  Avhich  are  ex- 
perienced by  members  of  the  English  Church — a  dis- 
content which  has  led  many  to  cast  themselves  into  the 
arms  of  self-styled  infallibility — finds  its  parallel  in  the 
dissatisfaction  with  which  some  persons  regard  con- 
stitutional government.     We  have  heard  English  people 


176  POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY, 

lament  the  good  old  times  when  an  English  king  was 
almost  as  absolute  as  the  Emperor  of  Russia  is  now — 
little  thinking  how  gladly  that  Emperor  would  abandon 
his  autocracy,  if  he  could  trust  his  people  as  an  English 
sovereign  can  ;  forgetting,  too,  how  ill  it  fared,  com- 
paratively, with  the  English  people  when  they  were 
subject  to  such  an  authority. 

Let  us  suppose  a  case.  Take  any  ordinary  English 
man  or  woman  who  has  given  but  little  thought  to  what 
we  call  constitutional  history,  or  who  has  not  much 
knowledge  of  the  condition  of  nations  under  various 
forms  of  government  Let  such  a  person  go  and 
see  the  United  States  of  America  with  its  republican 
government ;  let  him  then  see,  if  that  were  possible,  the 
Court  of  Versailles  under  Louis  XIV.  We  are  putting 
the  contrast  as  strongly  as  possible.  Let  us  even  suppose 
that  it  is  a  highly  cultivated  American  citizen  who  is 
studying  the  two  pictures.  What  are  his  emotions  ?  In 
many  cases  such  an  one  would  be  utterly  shocked  and 
disgusted  by  the  phenomena  of  the  young  Republic,  with 
its  selfish  place-hunters  and  its  ill-regulated  discussions, 
and  its  general  meanness  and  vulgarity.  On  the  other 
side,  there  is  dignity,  refinement,  culture — a  majesty 
which  awes,  enthrals,  and  fascinates.  It  would  be  a 
strong  brain  that  could  contemplate  the  two  pictures 
without  deciding  to  prefer  the  latter,  unless  he  looked 
carefully  below  the  surface  of  things.  Yet  a  philanthro- 
pist who  is  also  a  careful  student  of  history  will  come  to 
a  different  conclusion.  America  is  probably  not  a  model 
Republic ;  but  it  knows,  with  all  its  faults,  much  more  of 
righteousness,  equity,  humanity,  and  general  human  well- 
being  than  the  splendid  Ancien  I'egime  under  Louis  XIV. 


POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY,  177 

If  those  who  are  disturbed  by  the  tumults  of  freedom  in 
the  Enghsh  Communion,  and  fascinated  by  the  antiquity, 
splendour,  and  apparent  repose  of  the  Roman  Church, 
were  to  look  a  little  below  the  surface,  they  might  dis- 
cover bondage  and  disease  under  the  papal  cloth  of 
gold,  and  liberty  and  health  under  the  simpler  attire  of 
the  reformed  faith. 

These  illustrations,  it  may  be  said,  prove  nothing. 
They  are  not  adduced  to  prove  anything.  The  ques- 
tions which  give  occasion  for  them  prove  nothing ;  even 
if  we  had  no  answer  to  them,  our  failure  to  explain 
the  problem  which  they  suggest  could  establish  no  solid 
foundation  for  claims  so  extensive  and  universal  as  those 
of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  But  we  believe  we  have  thrown 
light  upon  that  problem  ;  we  have  shown  some  of  the 
steps  by  which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  advanced  from  the 
position  conceded  to  him  in  early  times  of  being  first 
among  equals  [primus  inter  pares)  ^  to  that  which  he  now 
claims  of  supreme  pontiff,  universal  bishop,  and  sove- 
reign ruler  of  the  whole  Christian  Church. 

While,  however,  we  believe  that  any  one  who  carefully 
follows  the  indications  which  we  have  presented,  will  be 
able  to  understand  something  of  the  growth  of  the  Papal 
power  in  the  ages  through  which  its  history  has  extended, 
we  must  again  draw  attention  to  the  real  point  under 
consideration.  Did  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  give  to  St. 
Peter  the  place  of  supreme  teacher  and  governor  among 
the  Apostles,  and  over  the  Church?  Did  St.  Peter  trans- 
mit those  powers  to  the  Roman  Pontiff?  Did  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  assert  those  powers,  and  were  they  conceded 
to  him  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Christian  Church?  We 
answer  all  these  questions  in  the  negative.     We  have 

M 


178  POST-NICENE  TESTIMONY, 

examined  with  the  utmost  care  and  candour  the  testi- 
monies of  the  sacred  writers,  and  of  the  earliest  Fathers 
of  the  Christian  Church,  and  they  know  nothing  of  these 
pretensions.  On  the  contrary,  their  words  and  their 
acts  are  utterly  incompatible  with  any  acceptance,  or 
even  any  knowledge  of  such  a  theory. 


C    179    ) 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

THE    CATHOLIC  FAITH 

Objection :  no  security  for  the  Catholic  faith  in  the  English  Church — 
Rests  upon  the  assumption  that  Roman  teaching  is  true — This,  the 
very  point  to  be  proved — The  objection  used  as  a  subsidiary  argu- 
ment in  behalf  of  Roman  claims — The  Catholic  Faith — What  it 
means— (i)  All  religious  truth  (even  if  truth)  not  of  equal  import- 
ance—Opinion and  faith  illustrated — (2)  The  multiplication  of 
dogmas — Not  desirable — Not  scriptural  or  primitive — Necessity  of 
doctrinal  definitions  conceded — Creed  of  Nicaea — Contrasted  with 
recent  Roman  definitions — English  formularies  and  ecclesiastical 
courts— What  do  the  formularies  teach  ? — Compared  with  primitive 
doctrine— The  demands  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  make  it  impossible 
to  give  him  his  old  position  in  the  Church — Decisions  of  ecclesias- 
tical courts — The  Gorham  case — The  Bennett  case— Essays  and 
reviews — Conclusion. 

We  might  leave  the  question  respecting  the  Papal 
claims  to  the  consideration  of  the  reader,  and  refuse 
to  be  drawn  aside  to  any  secondary  or  subordinate 
points  in  the  discussion.  But  there  is  one  argument 
which  is  frequently  urged,  of  a  character  so  specious 
and  plausible  that,  however  little  value  we  may  our- 
selves attach  to  it,  we  cannot  safely  pass  it  by.  We 
refer  to  the  objection  often  urged  that  there  is  no 
security  that  the  Catholic  faith  will  be  taught  in  the 
Church  of  England  ;  nay,  worse  than  this,  that  no  one 


i8o  THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH 

can  be  sure  that  he  will  not  be  forced  to  listen  to  the 
teaching  of  heresy  from  her  pulpits. 

We  say  the  argument  is  a  plausible  one,  and  we  are 
aware  that  it  has  actually  been  the  means  of  unsettling 
the  minds  of  unwary  members  of  the  English  Church. 
It  is  quite  obvious,  however,  when  we  examine  it  closely, 
that  it  rests  upon  an  assumption,  and  not  upon  an  ac- 
knowledged or  demonstrated  truth.  It  rests  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
the  "Catholic  Faith;"  and  this  is  the  very  thing  which 
has  to  be  proved,  and  which  we  deny. 

Let  us  make  this  quite  clear.  If  the  Roman  claims 
be  well  founded,  then  the  English  position  is  both  schis- 
matical  and  heretical.  It  is  in  that  case  of  no  use 
whatever  going  into  details,  and  saying  that  in  such  a 
Church  you  may  have  a  modified  Catholicity,  and  in 
such  another  almost  undisguised  heresy.  If  the  Pope 
be  the  Vicar  of  Christ — supreme  teacher  and  ruler  of 
the  Church — it  is  ridiculous  for  us  to  draw  up  a  scheme 
of  what  we  call  the  Catholic  faith,  apart  from  his  utter- 
ances, and  then  ask  how  far  that  scheme  is  recognised 
by  the  clergy  of  the  English  Church.  Assuming  the 
truth  of  the  Roman  claims,  we  have  no  right  whatever 
to  engage  in  any  such  examination;  we  have  only  to 
submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  accept  his 
teaching. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  this  be  not  proved  concerning 
the  Bishop  of  Rome — if  we  say  (as  we  do)  that  there  is 
no  adequate  and  satisfactory  proof  that  he  is  the  Vicar 
of  Christ,  then  the  imperfections  of  Enghsh  teaching  can 
furnish  no  reason  whatever  for  accepting  another  system 
which  we  do  not  believe  to  be  true.    And  yet  this  would 


THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH  i8i 

seem  to  be  the  tendency  of  the  argument,  if  it  has  any 
force  at  all. 

Let  us  look  at  it  again  and  mark  the  alternative  with 
which  we  confront  it.  "You  cannot  be  sure/'  says  the 
Roman,  "  that  you  will  not  have  heresy  instead  of  Catho- 
lic truth  in  the  Church  of  England."  We  reply — before 
even  looking  at  the  evidences  furnished  for  such  a  charge 
against  the  English  Church :  '^  This  argument  is  abso- 
lutely worthless;  for  whatever  the  teaching  of  the  English 
Church  may  be,  we  have  no  right  to  reinain  ifi  it  if  the 
Roman  claims  are  valid ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  7ve 
have  no  right  to  go  to  Rome  if  these  claims  are  invalid ; 
whatever  the  doctrinal  condition  of  the  English  Church 
and  clergy  may  be." 

Is  this  a  fair  alternative?  The  Roman  controver- 
sialist cannot  and  will  not  deny  it.  We  might  therefore 
treat  this  particular  argument  as  absolutely  worthless, 
and  leave  it.  But  we  cannot  be  unaware  that  it  is  used 
as  a  kind  of  subsidiary  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
Roman  claims  and  against  the  English  position;  and 
from  this  point  of  view  it  requires  some  further  con- 
sideration. It  might  be  inferred,  moreover,  that  we 
admitted  the  truth  of  the  accusation  against  the  English 
Church  if  we  were  to  dismiss  it  without  actually  facing 
its  contents. 

The  meaning  of  the  argument  so  employed,  may  be 
thus  stated :  There  is  a  body  of  doctrine  which  is  gener- 
ally accepted  by  Christians  as  forming  what  may  be 
called  the  '^  Catholic  faith."  Now  this  body  of  doctrine 
(however  much  there  may  be  besides)  is  actually  held 
by  the  Roman  Church,  enunciated  in  its  authoritative 
formularies,  taught  by  its  clergy,  and  cannot  in  any  of 


1 82  THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH 

its  parts  be  contradicted  by  any  of  its  teachers.  There- 
fore you  are  sure  that  you  will  be  taught  this  Catholic 
faith  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  On  the  other  hand,  you 
are  not  sure  of  this  in  the  Church  of  England.  Some 
of  the  clergy  of  that  Church  will  deny  portions  of  this 
faith,  and  you  will  be  forced  to  listen  to  what  you  con- 
sider heresy.  Is  it  not  then — here  is  the  point  of  the 
argument — is  it  not  more  likely  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  right,  than  that  the  Church  of  England  is  right?  See- 
ing that  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches  all  that  you  regard 
as  Catholic  truth,  while  the  Church  of  England  may  not, 
is  it  not  more  probable  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the 
true  Church,  and  that  her  other  doctrines  are  also  true, 
seeing  that  she  is  thus  faithful  to  that  which  you  regard 
as  Catholic  truth  ? 

The  argument  in  this  form  is  ingenious  and  specious, 
especially  as  addressed  to  the  adherents  of  one  particular 
school  in  the  Church  of  England.  But  we  must  again 
observe  that  it  rests  upon  a  double  assumption — first,  that 
all  doctrines  are  of  about  equal  importance;  and  secondl)^, 
that  it  is  desirable  to  multiply  the  number  of  articles  of 
faith,  to  define  a  great  many  points  of  Christian  opinion 
as  being  matters  of  faith,  instead  of  leaving  them  open. 
It  is  necessary  that  we  should  examine  this  double 
assumption  with  some  care. 

I.  With  regard  to  the  first,  that  all  religious  truths 
(even  if  it  be  granted  that  they  are  truths)  are  of  equal 
importance,  we  can  have  no  hesitation  in  negativing  the 
supposition  at  once.  Let  us  illustrate  this  statement 
from  certain  opinions  which  have,  in  some  Christian 
communities,  been  put  forth  as  dogmas,  and  which  at 
one  time  seemed   hkely  to  gain   that  position  in  the 


THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH  183 

Roman  Church.  Take,  for  instance,  the  teaching  of 
St.  Augustine  in  opposition  to  the  Pelagians.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  among  Christians  now  that,  in  that 
controversy,  St.  Augustine  was  substantially  in  the  right. 
In  asserting  the  necessity  of  Divine  grace  in  order  to  the 
fulfilling  of  the  Divine  law,  he  maintained  a  principle 
which  is  accepted  by  all  Christian  Churches  as  vital. 
But  Augustine  went  far  beyond  this,  and  made  asser- 
tions respecting  the  operation  of  Divine  grace  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  has  refused  to  approve.  Let  us  suppose 
that  the  whole  Western  Church  had  accepted,  as  the 
Calvinists  have  done,  these  opinions  of  Augustine  as 
dogmas,  would  any  one  pretend  that  they  were  of  equal 
importance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  his  system 
which  are  now  held  almost  universally  } 

Take  an  illustration  from  the  present  authoritative 
teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Until  a  {^^n  years 
ago  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
and  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  were  open  questions ; 
any  Roman  Catholic  might  deny  them.  At  that  time, 
then,  even  those  who  believed  them  to  be  true  regarded 
them  as  of  subordinate  importance  in  the  Christian 
system.  If  they  are  raised  to  an  equal  importance  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ,  for  example,  it 
cannot  be  from  their  intrinsic  value — for  quite  recently 
they  might  be  denied — but  from  the  accident  of  their 
being  defined  at  a  certain  time. 

2.  This  question  is  intimately  connected  with  the 
second  mentioned,  the  desirableness  of  multiplying  the 
articles  of  faith  in  the  Christian  Church.  This,  indeed, 
is  a  point  of  real  importance  in  connection  with  the 
controversy   between   England   and    Rome;   and   it  is 


1 84  THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH. 

perhaps  the  real  point  which  is  involved  in  the  argu- 
ment which  we  are  now  considering. 

Mark  the  point.  It  is  said  that  we  have  no  security 
that  the  whole  Catholic  faith  shall  be  taught  in  the 
English  Church.  Our  answer  is,  that  we  have  the  same 
security  for  the  teaching  of  what  we  regard  as  the 
Catholic  faith  that  the  Roman  Church  has  for  the 
teaching  of  its  view  of  the  faith.  But  we  maintain  that 
it  is  undesirable  that  the  articles  of  the  faith,  which  are 
to  be  believed  as  necessary  to  salvation,  should  be 
greatly  multiplied.  We  believe  that  it  is  safer  in  the 
interests  of  the  faith  itself,  and  more  conducive  to  the 
spiritual  well-being  of  Christian  men  and  women,  that 
many  questions  which  Rome  has  decided  as  matters  of 
faith  should  be  left  open  as  matters  of  opinion. 

One  thing  at  least  is  clear,  that  the  original  require- 
ments in  order  to  Christian  communion  were  few  and 
simple.  When  the  Apostles  preached  to  Jews  and 
Gentiles  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  Blessed  God,  they 
demanded  first  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ ;  secondly, 
that  the  professing  believer  should  be  baptized  with 
water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  in  this  way  become  a  member  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  ;  and  thirdly,  that  he  should  live  as  one 
who  had  given  himself  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.  This  was  all.  It  was  quite  clear  that  there 
was  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  apostles  to 
multiply  dogmas,  or  require  exact  conformity  with 
their  own  opinions  from  the  members  of  the  Church 
of  that  age. 

So  far  we  are  all  agreed.  But  the  Roman  will  remark 
with  perfect  truth  that  it  became  necessary,  in  the  course 


THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH,  185 

of  time,  to  define  more  exactly  those  doctrines  which 
were  from  the  beginning  essential  portions  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith.  This,  we  say,  is  perfectly  true.  When  a  man 
said,  ^*  I  beheve  in  Jesus  Christ, '^  he  was  understood  to 
attach  a  certain  meaning  to  the  great  Name  which  he 
confessed ;  and  that  meaning  was  so  well  understood 
in  the  Church,  that  for  a  time  there  was  no  need  to 
define  it  closely.  Even  when  Ebionitism  arose,  making 
of  Christ  a  mere  man,  and  Gnosticism,  which  denied  His 
proper  humanity,  there  was  for  a  long  time  no  formal 
definition  against  these  dangerous  errors.  But  when 
Arianism  began  to  spread  abroad  in  the  Church,  it 
became  necessary  not  to  make  a  new  doctrine — that 
was  not  then  thought  of — but  to  say  clearly  what  the 
Church  believed,  and  always  had  believed,  concerning 
the  person  of  her  Lord.  Now,  she  had  believed  always 
that  he  was  very  God  and  very  man  ;  and  that  is  what 
she  meant  to  say  by  drawing  up  the  Creed  of  Nicaea, 
aud  subsequently,  by  universally  accepting  it.  The 
particular  terms  of  that  confession  were  valuable  only  as 
setting  forth  clearly  those  truths.  The  reason  for  insist- 
ing that  the  Arianizing  party  should  accept  them  was 
simply  this :  that,  in  rejecting  that  form  of  words,  they 
meant  to  reject  the  proper  Godhead  of  Christ.  If  a 
Catholic  bishop  had  been  told,  after  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  that  he  had  helped  to  make  a  new  dogma,  he 
would  have  denied  the  truth  of  the  accusation  at  once. 
If  he  had  been  told  that  he  had  conclusively  shut  up 
that  which  had  previously  been  an  open  question,  he 
would  have  said  that  this  was  an  entire  misunderstanding 
of  their  intention  and  their  work.  They  had  simply  put 
the  faith  of  the  Church  into  language  which  did  not  now 


1 86  THE  CA  THOLIC  FA  1 TH, 

admit  of  evasion.  But  in  all  its  length  and  breadth  it 
was  the  old  faith  and  nothing  more. 

A  moment's  reflection  will  show  that  this  was  a  very 
different  procedure  from  the  recent  definitions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception, for  example,  is  not  the  mere  statement  of  a 
dogma  which  was  held  in  other  forms  before.  The  thing 
had  been  stated  centuries  ago  as  clearly  as  it  is  stated 
now;  but  formerly  it  might  be  negatived,  now  it  must  be 
affirmed.  And  this,  as  we  have  said,  not  with  reference  to 
any  mere  form  of  expression,  but  with  regard  to  the  very 
question  and  the  very  foundation  of  the  question  which 
is  now  supposed  to  be  settled.  It  is  then  a  new  doctrine  : 
new  as  a  doctrine  in  its  essential  meaning,  as  well  as  in 
its  formal  expression.  It  was  quite  different  with  the 
articles  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  In  their  meaning  they 
were  never  open  questions  in  the  Church;  and  the  new 
form  was  only  adopted  in  order  effectually  to  preserve 
the  old  meaning.  These  statements  can  be  further 
verified  by  taking  the  various  articles  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  in  detail,  and  considering  their  relation  to  the 
previous  teaching  of  the  Church,  and  then  contrasting 
them  with  the  new  dogmas  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in 
their  relation  to  the  teaching  of  primitive  Christianity. 

But  it  is  said  that  even  in  this  narrower  sense  of  the 
Catholic  faith  there  is  no  security  for  its  being  taught 
in  the  English  Church  ;  first,  because  of  the  indefiniteness 
of  our  doctrinal  formularies,  and  secondly,  because  of 
the  decisions  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts.  It  is  important 
to  consider  how  far  these  allegations  are  true,  and  to 
what  extent  they  may  be  used  against  the  English 
Church  and  in  support  of  the  Roman  position. 


THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH  187 

With  regard  to  the  language  of  our  doctrinal  for- 
mularies :  while  we  consider  the  large  amount  of 
liberty  w4iich  they  allow  to  be  almost  an  unmingled 
benefit,  we  admit  that  we  are  bound  to  test  their  con- 
tents by  the  primitive  and  Catholic  teaching  of  the 
Christian  Church.  And  in  doing  so,  we  must  ask  such 
questions  as  the  following  : — 

1.  Does  the  Church  of  England  teach  what  was  taught 
by  the  early  Church?  This  is  the  general  question. 
But  we  may  put  it  a  little  more  definitely. 

2.  Does  the  Church  of  England  leave  any  doctrine  as 
an  open  question  which  was  not  so  left  by  the  Catholic 
Church  in  the  first  ages  ?     Again, 

3.  Does  the  Church  of  England  tolerate  any  teaching 
which  the  early  Church  condemned? 

4.  Does  the  Church  of  England  deny  anything  which 
the  early  Church  affirmed  ? 

We  say  the  early  Church,  by  which  we  mean  here  the 
Church  of  the  first  four  centuries.  If  we  take  the  whole 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  call  that  the 
Catholic  faith,  then  of  course  there  is  an  end  to  the 
whole  question.  And  this  we  believe  to  be  the  assump- 
tion commonly  involved  in  the  argument  now  under 
consideration.  But  this  is  begging  the  whole  question, 
this  is  assuming  the  point  which  has  to  be  proved.  The 
supposition  which  we  are  now  examining  is  that  of  the 
existence  of  a  body  of  truth  which  was  known  in  the 
first  ages  as  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the  Christian 
Church.  We  have  extended  this  primitive  period  to  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century,  and  we  are  asking  whether 
the  Church  of  England  teaches  as  those  four  centuries 
taught ;  bears  the  same  witness  against  doctrinal  errors 


1 88  THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH, 

which  was  borne  by  those  four  centuries ;  whether  the 
Church  of  England  is  more  "  Hberal,"  more  "  indefinite," 
than  the  primitive  Church  was. 

We  have  no  hesitation  in  answering  the  questions  thus 
proposed.  The  Church  of  England  holds  and  teaches 
the  Catholic  doctrines  of  the  three  Creeds  ;  she  affirms  all 
that  they  affirmed ;  she  condemns,  as  they  condemned, 
Arianism,  Macedonianism,  Nestorianism,  Eutychianism. 
What  they  taught  concerning  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  concerning  the  Church,  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  the  life  everlasting,  she  teaches.  The 
Church  of  England,  in  short,  is  no  narrower  and  no 
wider,  no  more  liberal  and  no  more  exclusive,  than  the 
Church  of  the  first  four  centuries.  We  might  say  the 
first  five  j  but  we  have  reasons  for  stopping  at  the  fourth, 
in  order  to  prevent  the  necessity  of  extending  the  con- 
troversy to  greater  length. 

If  it  be  said  that  we  do  not  assign  to  the  See  of  Rome 
the  place  which  it  occupied  in  the  early  Church,  we 
reply  that  this  is  the  very  question  under  discussion  ; 
and  we  add  that,  in  so  far  as  this  is  true,  it  is  inevitable. 
We  deny  nothing  to  the  Roman  Bishop  which  he 
received  from  Christ.  If  we  cannot  give  him  the  place 
which  he  held  in  the  early  Church,  it  is  because  he  is 
not  contented  with  that  place.  Having  regard  to  his 
present  demands,  we  cannot  give  him  what  he  received 
from  the  early  Church  without  giving  him  much  more, 
which  we  consider  it  unlawful  to  give  him;  and  so  the 
fault  is  not  ours.  If  he  asserts  that  he  asks  no  more 
than  the  privileges  bestowed  upon  him  by  our  Lord,  we 
answer  that  he  cannot  prove  this,  that  we  can  prove  and 


THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH,  189 

have  proved  the  reverse;  and  therefore  it  becomes  a 
most  solemn  duty  to  deny  and  resist  his  pretensions. 

But  we  must  return  to  the  actual  teaching  of  the 
Church  of  England.  It  is  constantly  said  that,  however 
orthodox  our  formularies  may  be,  the  practical  action  of 
our  ecclesiastical  courts  throws  down  the  barriers  which 
they  have  raised,  so  that  we  have  no  safeguard  against 
heresy,  no  certainty  that  the  truth  which  the  creeds  assert 
will  be  taught  in  our  pulpits.  To  put  it  more  plainly 
and  more  strongly,  it  is  said  that,  in  these  days,  no  one 
will  be  condemned  for  heresy,  and  a  clergyman  may 
teach  what  he  likes. 

It  is  indeed  but  rarely  that  clergymen  are  convicted 
of  heresy,  although  it  is  by  no  means  true  that  this  never 
takes  place.  The  reason  for  this  infrequency  of  convic- 
tion is  to  be  sought  in  the  fact  that,  in  a  free  country 
like  England,  teachers  who  are  not  in  accord  with  the 
National  Church  leave  it  and  teach  their  own  opinions 
elsewhere.  Some  few  there  may  be  who  silently  hold 
heretical  opinions  ;  and  this  is  so  in  all  Churches.  There 
are  probably  fewer  in  the  Church  of  England  than  in 
most  other  Communions, — among  other  reasons,  on 
account  of  her  greater  liberality ;  but  if  English  clergy- 
men were  to  teach  heresy,  they  could  very  easily  be 
convicted  and  condemned. 

To  this  statement  we  are  prepared  to  hear  the  re- 
joinder that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  judgments  on  doctrine 
have  been  given  which  tend  to  leave  open  the  most 
momentous  questions,  and  to  allow  clergymen  of  differ- 
ent schools  of  thought  to  give  the  most  contradictory 
utterances  on  doctrines  of  vital  importance.  As  illustra- 
tions, we  are  asked  to  consider  the  Gorham  case,  the 


190  THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH. 

Bennett  case,  and  the  cases  arising  out  of  the  publica- 
tion of  "  Essays  and  Reviews."  It  would  be  impossible, 
within  our  limits,  to  consider  these  cases  at  length  j  but 
we  may  briefly  point  out  that  not  one  of  these  decisions 
affected  the  truth  of  the  Catholic  faith,  and  that  not 
one  of  them  allowed  in  the  Church  of  England  a  liberty 
unknown  to  primitive  Christianity,  or  hostile  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Church. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  these  cases  present  no 
difficulty;  because  men  of  real  ability  and  of  high 
principle  have  been  disquieted  by  them.  But  it  may  be 
truly  said  that  the  alarm  which  was  felt,  when  they  were 
first  decided,  has  not  only  disappeared,  but  has  been 
seen  to  be  in  a  great  measure  without  foundation. 

As  regards  the  Gorham  case,  the  point  in  dispute  was 
far  more  technical  than  real  and  substantial.  No  doubt, 
if  Mr.  Gorham  had  been  tried  by  men  who  considered 
merely  the  technical  language  of  the  Church  documents, 
and  the  expressions  of  which  he  had  made  use,  they 
would  in  all  probability  have  condemned  him.  And 
yet  most  people  who  now  calmly  consider  the  case  can 
see  that  they  would  have  been  wrong.  For  it  is  now 
agreed,  on  all  hands,  that  the  phraseology  respecting  the 
grace  of  baptism  is  more  or  less  ambiguous.  To  this 
day  the  word  "  regeneration  "  is  used  by  the  teachers  of 
every  Church  in  different  senses.  It  is  possible,  there- 
fore, that  one  person  might  affirm  and  another  might 
deny  that  the  grace  of  regeneration  is  universally  con- 
veyed by  means  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  and  yet 
that  both  might  mean  exactly  the  same  thing. 

Now,  whatever  might  be  the  propriety  of  Mr.  Gorham's 
language,  what  he  meant  was  to  say  that  there  is  not 


THE  CA  T HO  Lie  FA  ITH.  1 9 1 

certainly  a  true  beginning  of  the  life  of  grace  in  holy 
Baptism  ;  because,  according  to  his  view,  such  a  life, 
once  begun,  could  not  cease.  In  holding  this  view  of 
the  nature  of  Divine  grace,  he  believed  what  St.  Augus- 
tine beheved;  and  surely  it  could  not  have  been  the 
wish  of  High  Churchmen  of  that  time  to  exclude  St. 
Augustine  and  those  who  believed  as  he  did  from  the 
ministry  of  the  English  Church.  This  has  been  most 
clearly  shown  by  the  late  Professor  J.  B.  Mozley ;  and 
It  is  a  complete  answer  to  the  assertion  that,  by  the 
decisions  of  our  English  courts,  English  clergymen  may 
teach  opinions  on  baptism  diametrically  opposed  to 
each  other.  This  is  no  more  true  of  English  than  of 
Roman  clergymen.  Lacordaire  could  apply  the  language 
of  our  Lord,  *^  Except  a  man  be  born  again,"  to  the 
conscious  beginning  of  the  Christian  life  in  a  man^s 
personal  experience;  and  this  is  very  much  what  Mr. 
Gorham  did.  That  judgment  simply  affirmed  the  liberty 
which  has  always  been  enjoyed  in  the  Christian  Church 
on  the  subject  to  which  it  referred.  Formally  it  seemed 
to  do  more  than  this  :  really  it  did  no  more. 

The  Bennett  case  is  too  recent  to  be  examined,  in  all 
its  details,  in  this  place.  But  what  was  the  practical 
effect  of  the  judgment  in  that  case?  It  was  not  to 
sanction  two  different  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
in  the  Church  of  England ;  but  simply  to  decide  that 
certain  opinions  which  Mr.  Bennett  held  strongly  and 
taught  earnestly  w^ere  outside  the  definitions  of  the 
English  formularies  on  this  subject.  If  Mr.  Bennett  had 
raised  his  own  opinions  into  articles  of  faith  ;  if  he  had 
declared  that  the  holding  of  those  opinions  was  necessary 
to  salvation,  he  would  have  been  condemned.     He  did 


192  THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH. 

not  claim  the  authority  of  the  English  Church  for  the 
statements  which  he  published  :  he  only  asserted  that 
the  English  Church  did  not  condemn  them,  and  there- 
fore left  him  at  liberty  to  teach  them.  The  decision  of 
our  courts  was  to  the  effect  that  an  English  clergyman 
had  such  liberty. 

To  some  persons  this  decision  seemed  dangerous, 
and  at  variance  with  Catholic  truth.  But  this  view  can- 
not be  maintained.  The  early  Church  had  uttered  no 
authoritative  voice  on  the  subject.  It  left  its  members 
to  employ  language  widely  different  as  to  the  exact  mode 
of  the  presence  of  our  Lord  in  the  sacrament.  The 
English  Church,  in  allowing  the  same  liberty,  proved 
that  she  was  a  true  representative  of  primitive  Christi- 
anity. Partisans  on  both  sides  were  dissatisfied.  Some 
wished  the  EngUsh  Church  to  affirm,  and  others  wished 
it  to  condemn,  the  opinions  of  the  clergyman  who  was 
under  trial.  What  is  certain  is,  that  no  such  approval 
or  condemnation  is  to  be  found  in  the  decrees  of  the 
first  four  Qi^cumenical  Councils ;  no,  nor  in  the  writings 
of  the  great  fathers  and  teachers  of  the  Church  for  the 
first  four  or  five  centuries  of  her  history.  It  was  a  strong 
proof  of  the  true  Catholicity  of  the  English  Church  that 
no  such  approval  or  condemnation  was  found  by  her 
judges  in  the  wording  of  her  formularies. 

The  case  which  sprang  out  of  the  publication  of 
**  Essays  and  Reviews "  involved  two  doctrines,  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  future  punishment 
of  the  wicked.  It  will  be  remembered  that  considerable 
excitement  was  caused  by  the  acquittal  of  the  accused. 
Yet  to  what  did  that  acquittal  amount?  Simply  to  this; 
that  the  Church  of  England  had  not  so  defined  either  of 


THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH.  193 

those  doctrines  that  the  clergyman  in  question  must  be 
condemned. 

We  can  see  more  clearly  now  that  the  decision  was 
not  only  wise  but  just.  There  was  considerable  danger 
lest  these  points  should  be  so  defined — practically  de- 
fined at  least — as  to  check  the  lawful  exercise  of  the 
critical  study  of  the  Bible,  and  to  tie  down  the  teachers 
of  the  Church  to  some  narrow  theory  of  future  punish- 
ment which  further  investigation  might  have  shown  to 
be  unscriptural  and  untenable.  It  is  impossible  to  show 
that  men  have  studied  the  Bible  with  less  reverence 
since  that  judgment  was  pronounced,  or  that  the  teachers 
of  the  Church  have  shown  less  deference  to  its  authority. 
Never  has  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  been  conducted 
with  more  learning  and  zeal  and  devout  earnestness 
than  during  the  last  ten  years;  never  have  more  valuable 
contributions  been  made  to  our  expository  literature. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  subject  of  future  punishment 
has  been  discussed  with  greater  freedom,  it  has  not  been 
a  freedom  which  has  been  used  against  the  Gospel  or 
Divine  revelation ;  but  almost  universally  with  the 
greatest  respect  for  the  testimony  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures. 

So  much  we  may  say  as  to  the  practical  effects  of  the 
decision ;  but  we  must  again  recall  the  consideration  so 
often  adduced  that  the  early  Church  had  no  precise 
theory  with  reference  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Canonical 
books,  and  did  not  exclude  those  who  held  different 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  future  punishment. 

It  would  be  easy  to  apply  these  remarks  to  many  other 
subjects  which  the  Church  of  England  has  wisely  left 
open  ;  but  these  have  been  selected  as  the  most  pro- 

N 


194  THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH. 

minent,  and  as  having  been  the  subject  of  examination 
in  the  ecclesiastical  courts.  In  this  matter,  then,  the 
Church  of  England,  so  far  from  imperilling  her  claim  to 
Catholicity,  has  proved  that  she  is  truly  Catholic,  and 
this  in  no  vague  sense  of  that  expression.  She  affirms 
no  more  and  no  less  than  was  affirmed  by  the  first  ages 
of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ. 

And  thus  we  return  to  our  first  remark  :  the  accusa- 
tions against  the  English  Church,  as  giving  no  certainty 
for  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church,  rest  on  the 
assumption  that  doctrines  which  are  Roman  are  also 
Catholic.  And  this  is  the  very  point  which  has  to  be 
proved,  and  which  cannot  be  proved.  Taking  the 
Vincentian  canon  {Quod  semper^  quod  uhique^  quod  ab 
omnibus)  in  the  most  liberal  sense,  it  cannot  be  applied 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome ;  and  it  can  be 
applied  to  those  of  the  Church  of  England. 

We  may  sum  up  the  conclusions  at  which  we  have 
arrived,  and  put  the  nature  of  the  argument  in  a  very  few 
words.  The  advocates  of  the  Roman  claims  may  take 
one  or  two  starting  points  :  (i.)  They  may  attempt  to 
show  that  the  actual  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
in  perfect  accordance  with  the  doctrines  held  in  the 
Christian  Church  from  the  beginning  of  her  history. 
If  they  can  succeed  in  doing  this,  they  will  have  made 
it  probable  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  the  Vicar  of 
Christ;  or  (2.)  They  may  give  evidence  that  our  Lord 
appointed  St.  Peter  to  be  the  supreme  teacher  and 
ruler  of  the  Church,  and  that  the  apostle  transmitted 
all  his  power  and  authority  to  successors  who  were  to 
occupy  the  Roman  See  ;  and  in  that  case  we  are  bound 


THE  CATHOLIC  FAITH,  195 

to  submit  to  the  Pope,  and  to  accept  his  teaching  without 
question. 

We  can  find  no  sufficient  arguments  in  defence  of 
either  position.  It  is  to  the  latter  that  we  have  dedi- 
cated the  greater  portion  of  these  pages.  Roman 
Cathohcs  will  allow  that  it  is,  after  all,  the  one  vital 
question.  We  have  asserted,  and  we  beheve  we  have 
given  complete  proof  of  the  assertion,  that  the  Church 
of  the  first  four  centuries  knew  absolutely  nothing  of  the 
Roman  claims  in  their  modern  form.  And  therefore  we 
are  bound  to  reject  them  as  unfounded.  Whatever,  then, 
our  own  difficulties  may  be — and  they  are  much  less 
serious  than  they  are  often  represented — we  have  no 
right  to  accept  an  authority  which  we  believe  to  be 
usurped,  or  to  submit  to  claims  which  we  believe  to  be 
false. 


THE    END. 


LONDON  :    WELLS  GARDNER,  DARTON,  AND  CO.,  PATERNOSTER  BUILDINGS. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY^-TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  tx>ok  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


^ 

AU$    6 1970$  a 

'         tfr"'r)'?n     -M^ 

IL           ^fc     Ml 

j                v\^M)  n^  ij^y          mu 

t  2370-8PII24 

« 

\ 

[ 

1 

i 

i 

- 

1 

1            (N^5°3lltllf»r32                     UalS^2fF"'^ 

